| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | SylvainLS  | | Posted: | Apr 14, 2019 12:35 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 70620-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 1977_mauro writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 61184 Light Bluish Gray Technic, Pin 1/2 with 2L Bar Extension (Flick Missile) (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
I assume, someone has inventorized 4 x 87994 additional light bluish bars (1 to much by mistake) instead of adding one additional light bluish flick missile. Both are looking similar to each other.
(I think that the 4 bars should be reduced to 3 as well)
|
It’s not a mistake, I also got 9 (5+4) 87994 and 8 (8+0) 61184.
Extras are just that, extras, you are not assured to get them, and they can change
with production runs.
So, to be clear, your extra 61184 can be added but the 87994 you didn’t get should
stay.
|
 |
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 13, 2019 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Grays & Browns | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, uticabrix writes:
| | I am having trouble with brown vs Reddish brown, and also light grey vs light
bluesish gray. Does anyone have any suggestions how to identify which is what?
Are these current colors with Lego?
|
There was a “Great Colour Shift” around 2004.
The main colours that were replaced were Light and Dark Grays, and Brown, but
the other colours were also slightly modified.
LBG, DBG, and Reddish Brown are the current colours since then.
As for the difference, you need to look at your parts in daylight or with a daylight
tinted lightbulb. The old greys are yellowish/kaki (hence the newer ones looking
bluish in comparison whereas they are actually nearer “true” grey).
The best way is to keep at hand parts of which you are certain of the colours.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 19:26 | | Subject: | Re: inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | […]
| | Against.
I don’t know why “jumper” was chosen. The similarity with electrical jumpers
(little wires that “jump” over the main circuits, or little thingies to connect
two plots) is tenuous: yes it’s a connector but everything connects in LEGO.
But I believe “jumper” can be taken to mean that the connection “jumps” half
a stud.
Anyway, “jumper” is well engraved as meaning “offset stud” which the missing-studs
plates and having-studs tiles don’t have.
|
Sylvain, your previous thread-joint reply was appreciated! A Programmer-based
deficiency for sure...
So, truly, what we all need to consider is this:
Is BrickLink, as the premier site for those who have, maybe for the first time,
visited Lego.com to complete sets or begin their life-long passion as a creator
of MOC, or to find long sought after sets from days they remember, to base our
catalogue on Lego.com nomenclature and numbering system to be:
"Buyer Focused" so that they can jump-start their search based on item classifications
and numbers they found off of a set they own or want to recreate...Or, maybe,
just maybe, even more Intuitive! Now that would be something.
Or, wanting to determine the number of categories and number/images to make it
easy to store and access for those selling to pick from to be:
"Seller Focused"
My guess is that there are a lot more first-time potential buyers registering
on here and trying to make sense of what we are doing than long-term hobbyists.
I am always aware of what we may be losing in customer base. Just have a heart
for the ones that you never hear from on the Forum who just can't make sense
of it all...
|
Indeed. But what I’m against, and I wasn’t clear, is the use of the term “jumper”
for a tile with studs + plate without studs category.
For me, “jumper” is specific to 3794 (and its variants) and then to 87580 and
then to 34103. That’s only 3 (or 5) parts.
All tiles and plates could well be in a unique category (like they mostly are
in LDraw or LDD) but I don’t want it called “jumper” 
The problem verily lies within the strict category system, the lack of a parallel
tag system or at least the possibility for a part to appear in more than one
category.
With such a system, either you have a system that plans for anything and everything,
and you end up with the Dewey Decimal Classification for books, that no one understands
but specialists, or you have a system that needs to change with new elements
or better knowledge on the elements, like Linné’s taxonomy of living beings,
and, well, that no one understands but specialists either 
Either way, there’s still a need for a simple way, both for the hoi polloi and
the elite actually, to find a part, or a group of similar parts (whatever “similar”
might mean), in a few clicks.
In a library, the Dewey DC (or another similar system) is used for numbering
the books and the shelves but a patron just needs to talk to a librarian or use
a search tool to find the book they want, they don’t need to know the DDC. And
if a patron browses an alley, they will see similar books, but they won’t see,
for instance, all the books written by the same author if these fall under different
domains.
In a virtual system, like BL, the “patron” can be presented with an “alley” containing
all the plates, or all the parts with pins, or all the 2x2 parts….
In short, what I’m trying to say is you can twist a category system in all the
ways you want, you will still need knowledge to use it, it will still be for
the specialists. To allow newbies to use it, you need a librarian, and this
website should be one.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In other words there is a mess which will be hard to clarify 
|
Keep it simple. A tile does not have studs. So if it has studs, then it is a
plate.
|
That's how I see things, also, but we will have to hold off on this debate
for a bit until Marek and I can get our plates cleared off to focus on catalog
projects again.[…]
|
Well done
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 16:06 | | Subject: | Re: inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | […]
Just going to put this out there and wait for the bashing,
Why not put them in both categories?
|
The database won’t allow it.
A part can only be in one category.
Because they are “categories,” not “tags.”
A tag system was asked for, many times.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
