BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:

This suggestion is a summary of my recommendations, plus input from others' many
private messages I received on this over the last few days that I would like
Admin to consider in the site upgrade.

BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION:-

The BrickLink site has always required its' members, both buyers and sellers,
to trade legally and fairly. This is an essential aspect of the site's reputation
which makes it an attractive venue for buyers and sellers to trade here with
confidence and safety. The continued success of the site and enjoyment of it
experienced by its' members both depend heavilly on this being maintained.

The site continues to grow rapidly and welcomes many mew members, both buyers
and sellers every day. The financial success of the site has indeed secured its'
future beyond the loss of its' inspired founder. In the early days, this site
was a small community and the founder members and early adopters clearly did
a great job in building the principles of the site and policing it in a self-regulatory
way. For the most part this still works today but, as is demonstrated in the
many threads recently, some (buyers and sellers) are falling short of those principles
and indeed the law! This may be driven by the vast increase in membership which
makes this place less "personal" for some and combined with this; the laws and
regulations covering internet trading become more and more complex as governments
focus on the explosion of such trading and their need to close tax loopholes
and try to protect their consumers from substandard trading and scams.

I believe the site and ALL its' members (except for any that come here to do
unfair or illegal trading) will benefit from a more developed policy on safe
and legal trading for both their own protection and for the reputation of the
site in general which should help promote its' continued growth and success.

The following suggestions are simply my thougths on "how" some of the issues
might be addressed taking into account the direct input I have had from several
other members as well as many forum threads over the years but some recent ones
in particular:-

SUGGESTION #1 - EXPAND ON THIS IN TOS:-

TOS #11 REQUIRES the following.

"General Compliance with Laws:
You shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations
regarding your use of our service and your listing, purchase and sale of items."

Whilst this "covers" the site in demonstrating to authorities its' intent not
to encourage illegal behaviour, in practice it does little or nothing to:

1. Help inform its' members about what those laws might be and where to find
out about them. Many of the problems here (for buyers and sellers) are caused
by a complete lack of knowledge on the relevent laws.

2. Provides no penalty for breaking them which unfortunately is the reason why
some of the intentional law breakers are comming here.

I suggest changing the TOS #11 to spell out some of the specific laws that members
need to comply with, namely:

Customs - sellers are required to complete customs documents as required by law
honestly and accurately which, for the purpose of selling here, means declaring
the sales value of the goods as stated on the invoice and NOT misprepresenting
commercial sales as gifts.

Compliance with local advertising, selling and consumer protection laws - sellers
are required to comply with all relevent laws applicable to their selling activities.

Taxation - prior to listing any items for sale, sellers are advised to check
the rules in their country relating to any taxation they may need to charge their
customers (e.g. sales tax, VAT as applicable) and any requirements to declare
to their tax authorities any sales activity they conduct on this site.

SUGGESTION #2 - MAKE CUSTOMS FRAUD A REPORTABLE OFFENCE:-

Just as we can report listings that do not comply with the TOS, have a similar
funtion where:

1. Sellers can report (with evidence e.g. private message) to Admin that a buyer
requested a fraudulent customs declaration.

2. Buyers can report (with evidence e.g. private message or something in sellers'
terms) that a seller is offering a fraudulent customs declaration.

3. If a penalty is given, just like an NPB or NSS, a buyer or seller can have
feedback removed if it was given in relation to a transaction subject to the
penalty.

4. A buyer or seller has the right to cancel an order without penalty if subject
to a validated request for customs fraud.

Validated reports would result in a penalty ranging from 1st warning, through
temporary suspension of buying or selling rights, to membership termination for
repeat offenders.

SUGGESTION #3 - HAVE A HELP GUIDE ON SAFETY AND THE LAW

Which members have to declare they have read before they can buy or sell on the
site.

Unlike eBay which has legal resources in many of its' markets, BL has a central
Administration which cannot be expected to be expert on these matter in all geographies.

Perhaps we cound have voluntary "country Admins" for this purpose who would be
responsible for maintaining content with an opening statement relevent to their
market and a number of (official government only) links to any laws relating
to internet buying and selling in their country and the official taxation and
customs sites for their country. This must have a legal disclaimer saying these
Admins and the site are not giving legal advice and it is the ultimate responsibility
of the individual member to ensure he/she complies with all applicable laws.

SUGGESTION #4 - HAVE SOME FUNCTION TO PROMPT BUYERS WHEN BUYING INTERNATIONALLY
-

When you put something in a cart of a store not in your country, you are prompted
to look at a page that says something like:-

"You are about to purchase from a store located outside of your country, you
are advised to check if you may be liable for any customs charges relating to
importing this item into your country WHICH ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY before committing
to this purchase. Purchasing from overseas may also limit your rights as a buyer."

Obviously, this needs some more thought! I would not want this message for EVERY
item I put in a store cart, maybe just the 1st one for example. Maybe give an
option "do not show this message again" after a couple of hits on it within a
certain time period.

SUMMING IT UP FOR ME:-

None of this changes anything that is not the intent of the current TOS.

It is not to differentiate between "private" or "business" sellers for any purpose
of promoting one above the other, although for UK at least and many EU countries,
Gareth's suggestion on that would help keep sellers on the right side of the
law so I still support that too. There does seem to be some differences of definition
on that between countries which would need to be addressed further.

This is intended to HELP buyers and sellers comply with their laws and avoid
some of the risks many are taking now through ignorance of them. Being reported
for falling foul of a law or being caught not complying with it in most cases
carries penalties that most people would be pleased to avoid if given a chance
and informing them better simply helps to avoid that possibility

I would be happy to do more work on this if required as I am passionate about
keeping this a safe, respected place with trading standards that we can ALL be
proud of and enjoy.

CONGRATUALTIONS YOU GOT TO THE END OF THIS POST -

Thank you very much for your time!

Robert

I very much agree with your introduction, and I can't say I disagree with
the rest, but to me the issue of customs delcarations seems really minor and
anecdotal - people are usually talking more about the issue in theory than about
actual occurences of it, and I wonder how much money in the history of Bricklink
has been actually saved by inaccurate forms.

For me much more immediate concerns that comes to mind when reading your introduction
are the following, because when I go over various random EU store's terms
MORE THAN HALF of the sample is not legally compliant with at least
one and usually multiple ones of the following rules:

- Full acceptance of cancellation without penalty and without reason required

- Accepting returns and refunding the buyer including the postage cost and the
postage cost of sending it back

- Not charging more for transaction fees than the transactions actually cost

And last but not least:

- Being responsible for lost shipments - meaning full refund or resend if anything
goes missing

These laws apply to all EU stores, regardless of the legal form of the store.
Here on Bricklink we sell in stores (selling through the forum is not even allowed).
Therefore, all of the above is applicable and in my opinion should be enforced
by Bricklink.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

May 2, 2019 04:40

Subject:

Re: Coral

Viewed:

58 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, qwertyboy writes:

FYI -

Just came across a bunch of these parts in color coral:

27507 Tile, Round Corner 4 x 4 Macaroni Wide
Parts: Tile, Round

It looks like there are two distinct shades. One exactly matches coral color
for this part we have:

41740 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs with Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

The other one is lighter - less saturated. TLG calls the new color "vibrant coral".
The lighter shade could almost be called "regular coral".

Or of course another
instance of bad quality control.

I can see if I can make a pic later.

Niek.

Coral: What an unfortunate name for a colour. If there's one thing in the
world that can have every colour imaginable... it's coral. But apparently
that's just me, because Google tells me it's a thing. I'd go for
salmon or something like that.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 22, 2019 12:06

Subject:

Re: Random Stockroom Items

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Inventories, antiquer88 writes:

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone could tell me why random items show up as stockroom
items in my inventory. I have no items I have intentionally marked for retention
in stockroom, yet every Monday I go to my inventory and delete random items that
have shown up as zero count stockroom items.

Is this something I have done in error, or is it a system problem?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Stan.

It's one of those persistent problems that Bricklink is trying to fix. I
think something is really wrong in the bug fixing department, it seems their
ability to isolate a problem and target it effectively with a fix is really compromised.
Previously there was an issue with remark fields being deleted and it also took
a very long time and was also "fixed" in an "ok this time it really seems to
work but if you have problems let us know" way.
Several people have reported this issue. Hope for you guys they will do something
about it.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 20, 2019 09:32

Subject:

Re: What do the ! and * symbols mean under image?

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Inventories, Naughty_UK writes:

Thanks, yeah, I see those tips now when I view the 3D part in "Quick Help Tips:",
dunno how I missed them before... I was slightly confused before that though
because when I was looking at a set inventory, part 3023 in black had a ! beneath
it but the same part in light grey didn't have one...

How is it confusing? Everybody knows that an asterisk is the symbol for "large"
and an exclamation mark the universal symbol for 3D, right? Can't see why
new users complain Bricklink is not intuitive

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 17, 2019 05:41

Subject:

Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

I’m wondering what’s the rationale for having changed the name (and dimensions)
of

18654 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 1 (Spacer)
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

from “1 L” to “2/3 L”.

I can’t see where it’s 0.67L.

Especially if I compare it to

62462 Technic, Pin Connector Round 2L with Slot (Pin Joiner Round)
Parts: Technic, Connector

6538 Technic, Axle Connector 2L (Ridged Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic, Connector

and their variants, or with

43857 Technic, Liftarm Thick 1 x 2
Parts: Technic, Liftarm

and other liftarms/beams, or all the connectors with “# L” in their descriptions.

In the same way, its new dimensions are 1 x 1 x 0.67. As it’s a cylinder, it
means the 0.67 is supposed to apply to its height. But its height is exactly
1 stud, which is 5/6th = 0.83 brick, not 2/3rd = 0.67, and, anyway, “L” means
stud, not brick, so 1 = 1.

Therefore, I strongly believe its name should have stayed “Technic, Pin Connector
Round 1 L” and its dimensions should be 1 x 1 x 0.83.
(Actually, its diameter is a shy less than 1 stud, so its dimensions should be
0.9something x 0.9something x 0.83 but all the liftarms have the same width and
are said to be 1 stud wide.)

Not filing a proper catalogue change request because I really would want to know
the reasoning here, not play ping-pong.

I don't really care too much right now about the dimensions of the part.
What I care about more is how it is named and categorized. I have never thought
of it as a "Pin Connector" because it actually can't connect pins at all.
It is basically a 1L bushing for pins in the same way

3713 Technic Bush
Parts: Technic

is a 1L bushing for axles.

Cheers,
Randy

How can factual correctness be less important than a choice of how to categorise
it? I'd say #1 is to get the facts straight, and after that, we can go and
organise it. But what SylvainLS points out here is a real mistake that should
be corrected. It's a small thing in itself, but the correctness of the catalog
is one of the core features that drive Bricklink. I'd say it's the main
selling point of Bricklink compared to BrickOwl.

Maybe someone thought it was 2 plates high, thus 2/3.. but it really raises the
question why it was ever approved.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:39

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.

I like this sentence.

Me too.
Well, except for the example, as there are plates with grooves

3030a Plate 4 x 10 with Groove
Parts: Plate

and tiles/plates variants with and without groove

41740 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs with Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

92593 Plate, Modified 1 x 4 with 2 Studs without Groove
Parts: Plate, Modified

(And the jumpers too….)

Yeah... the fact that there's a variation that would span across categories
if you take the groove as the defining factor, kind of kills that idea pretty
effectively.

Anyway, in my opinion it's not a huge deal that it's not perfect. TileMod
and PlateMod are two fairly big categories, nicely sized if you ask me. God forbid
someone would decide to merge them together because there's no principal
distinction possible. I'd rather put up with a bit of inconsistency that's
very easy to learn, than one huge category that is difficult to manage, both
in terms of browsing it online as well as storing it for me and other stores
who have category based sorting..
And we have the forum for venting inconsistency frustrations, which works pretty
well too

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 9, 2019 14:15

Subject:

Re: inconsistencies

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

In Catalog, edk writes:

why is

6576 Plate, Modified 4 x 8 with Studs in Center
Parts: Plate, Modified

a plate modified when

88646 Tile, Modified 3 x 4 with 4 Studs in Center
Parts: Tile, Modified

is a tile modified?

There is no consistency, both could be either.

You could say the parent of 6576 is either a 4x8 plate or 4x8 tile, but the 4x8
tile doesn't exist so 6576 must be a modified plate.

Or you could say you add 12 studs to the tile or remove 20 studs from the plate,
so it is closer to being a tile than a plate.

For 88646, neither the parent tile or plate exist. You add 4 studs to the tile,
but remove 8 from the plate and also have to shift them. So does that make it
a modified tile rather than modified plate?

If so, then the 1x2 jumper should be a modified tile (add one stud, vs remove
and move one stud). Similarly a 2x2 jumper is definitely closer to a tile than
a plate but is still a modified plate. Worse still, this pack of jumper bricks:

10115-1 (Inv) Jumper Bricks
80 Parts, 2001
Sets: Bulk Bricks

contains no bricks at all.

33909 Tile, Modified 2 x 2 with Studs on Edge
Parts: Tile, Modified

is clearly a 2x2 plate with two studs removed, but it is a modified tile.

6180 Tile, Modified 4 x 6 with Studs on Edges
Parts: Tile, Modified

is also a modified tile rather than plate (compare to 6576).

Exactly, the jumpers always seemed much more tile-like to me than that "tile".

I guess the only relevant answer to this issue is: This was acknowledged by the
previous catmin Stormchaser, he said the concepts of plate and tile needed to
be principally redefined before these things could be classified properly. If
that's also what the new catalog management will do is not yet clear. Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 28, 2019 09:33

Subject:

Re: Brickstock questions

Viewed:

23 times

Topic:

In Inventories, calsbricks writes:

In Inventories, Teup writes:

In Inventories, calsbricks writes:

In Inventories, wilton1975 writes:

Guys,

Appreciate both your responses as they shed some much needed light. It is a little
strange that BrickStock doesn't seem to have a Help section explaining all
this.

HI there sorry I missed this thread earlier

Please bear in mind that Teup's comments do not really apply to the UK.

Well.... it does. I'm just saying that the averge price that you see here
in Bricklink is not equal to the average price in Brickstock. These do not match.
Parting out a set at average price on Bricklink will result in you having higher
priced items than parting out that same set at average price in Brickstock.

Whether you wish to match the price of other stores including VAT, or whether
you want to compare yourself to their prices ex VAT... yeah, here you're
right, those are all your own business decisions.

But the fact is that the Bricklink priceguide does not match the Brickstock priceguide.
It's important to be aware of this. Pricing at the Brickstock average is
pricing below the Bricklink average.

As I said or at least implied - average pricing in the UK includes VAT and once
you adjust the downloaded price in Brickstock it matches as close as can be expected.
Nothing is perfect and Brickstock could use work on this but so could Bricklink.
The currency conversion is a bigger issue than vat as it applies to all apart
from the USA. Bricklink could do a lot more there and haven't.

Do USA prices include sales tax ? That differs depending on whether you ship
in state or out of state. So the whole pricing scenario based on Bricklink is
a bit shaky - it should be used as a guideline only not a 'real figure'.

Do the last 6 months sales prices include tzes of any kind or is it net. If something
sells at 10p that is the price that should be reflected. If you are vat registered
and can claim back the vat go for it - but for the majority of UK sellers that
is not the position - what you see is what you pay and that is what your cost
is. Pricing needs to be based on cost + not some weird price guide which no one
fully understands. They can tell you how it works but when you look at it you
only see a single figure not how that figures has been made up.

Again for example 1000 units sold at 8p one month but 10p the next month so average
is 9p, but that is not remotely accurate. If the currency conversion rate has
fluctuated then they might be selling at a totally different price, or the same
price.

The price guide needs major re-working and I do not believe that is going to
happen. It currently is a very crude tool which has to be manipulated to get
anywhere near reality.

If the design of the system is anywhere near what it should be there is only
one table with prices and those are converted from an exchange rate table each
time they are displayed, Somehow I doubt that.

Well, I guess that's all true enough. Some take the priceguide as just a
guide, some ignore it, some take it as some holy prescription. I tend to be kind
of the latter type... but that's not because I think these numbers are inherently
all so correct (you pointed out some of its shortcomings) but I just remember
that when I was a buyer I'd check the priceguide on everything and buy things
depending on them being at or below average. So it's more a presentation
matter that I want my prices to line up with that reference than that I give
that reference any "scientific" credit. So the priceguide is my starting point
and from there I decide what to buy. Instead of first buying, and then based
on what I spent deciding what my prices should be.

But that's just a personal decision of course. You could invent any kind
of pricing policy for yourself and there are good arguments for all of them.
Maybe in some of them it is actually a blessing that Brickstock downloads the
ex.VAT value.

But in what ever case, no matter what your pricing policy is, and no matter whether
you are VAT registered, no matter if you're a buyer or a seller, if you live
in the area where Bricklink displays prices including VAT for, for all these
people, it is just important to know this difference: priceguide on BL includes
VAT, priceguide downloaded through Brickstock excludes VAT. Then you can do whatever
you want with that information. But knowing it is important as it prevents us
from sleepwalking into a race to the bottom.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 28, 2019 05:25

Subject:

Re: Brickstock questions

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Inventories, calsbricks writes:

In Inventories, wilton1975 writes:

Guys,

Appreciate both your responses as they shed some much needed light. It is a little
strange that BrickStock doesn't seem to have a Help section explaining all
this.

HI there sorry I missed this thread earlier

Please bear in mind that Teup's comments do not really apply to the UK.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 26, 2019 16:15

Subject:

Re: Brickstock questions

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Inventories, greenman writes:

In Inventories, wilton1975 writes:

Hello all,

I have a couple of questions on Brickstock which someone might know the answer
to.

My store uses EURO and in Brickstock I have ticked Currency, Use the local currency
$1 = €1.

I have changed my asking price in Brickstock to the Last 6 months sales (average).

Question 1: Is my setting local currency $1 = €1 correct? I am not trying to
convert my store currency as it is in Euro now and I wish it remains so.

Question 2: Is the revalued asking price the Last 6 month sales average in Euro?
I read other forum posts that stated that BrickStock only uses sales data in
USD to compute its averages.

Question 3: if indeed the above is correct (in relation to USD and sales data)
is there any means to determine the actual average 6 month Sales data for the
World or European market?

Thanks for any help with either of these queries.

The prices you see in BrickScout are in Dollars.
So, if you let BS set your prices to the Average, you see (with 1 = 1) Dollar
prices.

In BS under "edit"-"price"-"incr or decr" you have to lower your prices with
about 10% to come to the Euro prices, as shown in BrickLink.

....but it´s never as accurate as you would like it to be, the DollarEuro
exchange rate is fluctuating all the time.

Klaas

Brickstock prices are excluding VAT.. that is why I definitely recommend NOT
using Brickstock for pricing if you are in the EU. You'll never be able to
retrieve the true priceguide prices that you see on Bricklink, no matter what
conversion factor you enter.

(And I still have no response from the author of Brickstock about this....)

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 21, 2019 06:45

Subject:

Re: Fine print regarding lot quanities

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, JONAK_Toys writes:

In Suggestions, wrightcrystal50 writes:

I just wasted 6 hours placing an order just find out fine print stated I could
only buy lots in quantities of a $1. If this is a stipulation of a seller I
shouldn’t have to sift through fine print to find it. Likely I will not use
this site again until this is fixed. I quickly learned (100) meant quantities
divisible by 100 and when I miss that I am warned which is great and very helpful.
It should be the same when sellers have a stupid rule similar to described.
If a seller wants to have a stupid rule so be it, but it should be more obvious
to the buyer when selecting quantities to purchase.

When a store has that option enabled, it will show up on that grey line next
to the green cart button. Even then, it is always best to read through a stores
terms before preparing a cart.

Sounds a bit like this store has the rule only in text without having the option
enabled :/
In that case, I would just go ahead and place the order in that case, screw them,
they can't just waste your time like that. They can choose to either process
or accept non positive feedback

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 20, 2019 07:25

Subject:

Re: We need a modern way to part out sets.

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

It doesn't work, because not all items have the same distribution globally.
Some are prevalent in the VAT zone (closer to 20% difference with the BL priceguide),
some more outside of it (closer to no difference with the BL priceguide). Any
+% would be an estimation that will be off. Maybe not by a whole lot, but a 5
cent difference off the average can already make alot of difference in terms
of your place in the rankings and how fast the item will be sold.

It's not difficult at all, and there is no dilemma or tradeoff. The Brickstick
priceguide prices simply have to be identical to the Bricklink priceguide prices.
To do this, Brickstock simply has to access the priceguide including VAT. That
is a parameter that already exists. Either Brickstock has to perform a very simple
update, or, if this parameter is not available to them, Bricklink should make
it available in the API. It's really very simple.

I think it's very problematic doesn't even warn sellers, so they could
be underpricing without being aware of it.

In Suggestions, Thunor writes:

Why not update imported BrickStock prices using the +% feature?

It would be useless to business users if it included tax, with all the different
tax rates globally it wouldn’t work for anyone.

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:

In Suggestions, HallBricks writes:

The "Part Out" tool feels very outdated, and is tedious to use. One accidental
click on a link, and you loose every data you have put in for each lot.

I know there are third party software used to upload parts to your inventory,
but think a much more powerful way to part out set should be offered by BrickLink.
Maybe a software you download to your computer, but it could also just be a massive
redesign of the existing tool online.

What I miss the most is easier ways to manage lots that already exist in my inventory.
I don't want to open a new page just to check the remarks for a certain lot,
because if I forget to open that link in a new tab I will loose all progress
made with the other lots. This information should be visible on the same page,
or I should be able to open it in a pop-up window.

When parting out huge sets with thousands of pieces, it would also be nice to
be able to save the progress and continue later. Maybe there should be one upload
button for each lot, so I don't have to go through the entire list first
and then submit all changes at once.

There are of course lots of different features that could be implemented to make
the Part Out tool even more powerful, like more advanced ways to set up automatic
prices, like 10% below average etc.

Brickstock. Best $20 I spent. Super Easy. Do I wish it did more, of course,
but it does enough to satisfy me.

Yep, Brickstock is US oriented so it works for you, not for us

Prices exclude
VAT, so it renders it useless to me. I'd rather go through the Bricklink
part out process, have it crash, throw away my progress with a misclick, and
some other frustrations than to end up with prices that are off. It sounds like
everyone has slightly different wishes about what they like to see exactly in
the update, but making the BL part out process have all the benefits of Brickstock
would probably be a great place to start. That way European sellers can benefit
from all the benefits of Brickstock as well.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 17, 2019 04:53

Subject:

Re: We need a modern way to part out sets.

Viewed:

72 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:

In Suggestions, HallBricks writes:

Brickstock. Best $20 I spent. Super Easy. Do I wish it did more, of course,
but it does enough to satisfy me.

Yep, Brickstock is US oriented so it works for you, not for us

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 16, 2019 14:30

Subject:

Re: We need a modern way to part out sets.

Viewed:

67 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, bje writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:

In Suggestions, HallBricks writes:

...

There are of course lots of different features that could be implemented to make
the Part Out tool even more powerful, like more advanced ways to set up automatic
prices, like 10% below average etc.

When I was selling here I was very strongly opposed to the idea of automating
pricing to undercut the Price Guide Average. My thinking then was that nothing
would increase downward pressure on prices or accelerate the "race to the bottom"
some sellers here engage in more than giving them a way to automatically, easily,
quickly and repeatedly price thousands and thousands of lots BELOW the Price
Guide Average. The tedious manual process was one significant check that reduced
the downward pressure on prices.

But since I am very unlikely to ever sell here again, and quite likely to resume
buying at some point, I would LOVE to see a feature that helps to reduce prices
even more. So I would vote yes if this were a formal suggestion.

Foster

Agreed. Actually, the system as it is is already working in your favour as a
buyer - thee part out system being so poorly designed and unstable drives alot
of sellers to use Brickstock. Brickstock retrieves prices WITHOUT VAT - which
means that for all European sellers, it retrieves prices that are significantly
lower than what you get parting out on the Bricklink website. The result is sellers
underpricing without being aware of it, fuelling the global race to the bottom.

Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of sellers in that bottom end of the market
that make up prices with fees and charges. You cannot compare prices in the price
guide without factoring fees etc. If the average is 10c and the minimum price
is 7c, if one seller sells at 10c with no fees, he is no different to the seller
at the bottom at 7c with charges and fees that knocks the price back over 11c.

I had me one like that just last week: no fees on the terms page when I got the
invoice, fees and charges excluding shipping were 40% of the order value, knocking
all of the individual prices that seller was asking on those parts from the bottom
5% to way over the average price.

When you actually spend some time really looking at those prices, virtually all
of them are exclusive of fees and charges - meaning the price guide is actually
just false advertising since hardly any of those sellers are actually prepared
to sell at the price they have listed at. And those are just the ones that are
honest enough to tell you upfront about extra fees, there are still a large volume
of sellers who charge those fees included in the shipping charge, sometimes an
extra 50% over and above the actual shipping charge. They are very very aware
of where they are pricing, and it has nothing to do with a race to the bottom,
but everything to do with luring unwary buyers.

You're right, that issue of fees not being represented in search listings,
enabling sellers to pretend they are cheap, must be one of the factors in the
race to the bottom as well. Which factors are the biggest is hard to tell. But
what I find particularly worrying about Brickstock, is that any other factor
- like pretending to be cheap and then charging fees - is compounded and
amplified with the fact that Brickstock retrieves lower than average prices to
begin with, and presents them as average. So someone who already plans to undercut
is given a price guide figure that is already below average but presented to
them as "average", and the seller then undercuts on that, to push it down even
further.

And: it is a loop. Let's say I am the only seller of a €10 item and I update
my price to "stay average" many times. What happens? It just drops down and down.
The first time I list it at €10. Next I ask Brickstock what the average price
is. Brickstock, ignoring VAT, says it's €8. I say "OK, let's go with
that". Retrieve the price again. Now Brickstock, again ignoring VAT, says it's
now €6.50. You can see the downward spiral here. Imagine what happens if all
European sellers update their prices with Brickstock on a regular basis.. (I
get that they adjust to their liking, but if you start off modifying taking an
ever dropping price as the starting point, on the whole prices just drop and
drop)

(I know I'm a bit of a broken record on this topic, but I can't emphasize
it enough. And I did write the author about it. Hopefully he will act soon, or
I am going to remain a broken record for a while..)

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 16, 2019 13:36

Subject:

Re: We need a modern way to part out sets.

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, DallasBricks writes:

Bricklink as a whole has not left the hobby status. Although there are many
sellers that are business minded in their processes, scale, and earnings, they
are left using outdated hobby like business practices.

The parting out process is a dinosaur. It is fraught with failure potholes that
can cause you to loose a lot of work in an instant. It is difficult to update
and maintain your inventory. The whole alternate mold/part thing is still a
mess. It is very easy to screw up your inventory using BL tools or the ones
that try to interface with BL.

I don't see these things changing in the future. Bricklink made it clear
that the site would have a few changes but would not be updated to a professional
level. A few features that nobody wanted were added, (Moc shop, Brick arms,
Stud.io)
The payment and shipping side are still limping along after over 3 years of attempted
updates.

Bricklink is more trouble than it is worth for many sellers. I stopped selling
parts several years ago and am glad I did so. Now I have a huge inventory to
build with.

Oh, and don't get me started on the wanted list thing. It is improved, but
there are so many improvements that could be made. Large projects are incredibly
complicated and require spreadsheets, tools, and lots of time and effort. Bricklink
offers little in the way of effective tools.

But I'm still here buying and such.

David

+1 That's a very good way to put it - it's at hobby level. Nothing more
or less. This is why for all hobby users, Bricklink work fine and they are nothing
but glad to use it, and with good reasons. For professional users, it's incredibly
frustrating at times, and their complaints are poorly understood by the hobby
users. Since there are more buyers than sellers, the voice for people to stop
"complaining" is sometimes louder than the voice that wants change. That doesn't
really help development either (although BL hardly seems to read the forum, let
alone be influenced by it).

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 16, 2019 13:31

Subject:

Re: We need a modern way to part out sets.

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:

In Suggestions, HallBricks writes:

...

There are of course lots of different features that could be implemented to make
the Part Out tool even more powerful, like more advanced ways to set up automatic
prices, like 10% below average etc.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 16, 2019 05:37

Subject:

Re: We need a modern way to part out sets.

Viewed:

72 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, HallBricks writes:

You're completely right, it should have been redone many years ago. If you
compare the wanted list part-out screen with the seller's part-out screen,
it becomes very clear that sellers are the lowest of low priorities..

BL said however that seller tools are just around the corner, if this is true
then some update in the part-out system must be included as well. I guess it
just comes down to whether you believe that statement or not - some users do,
some don't.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Feb 12, 2019 13:07

Subject:

Re: Allow AFOLs to "Bricklink" the ADP sets

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, mhortar writes:

In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:

There are no plans to do so, but I hope that once the regular sales period is
finished Bricklink allows the inventory of these sets to be added to the catalog
so people can add them to a want list and buy the parts they need to build them.
Since they use mostly common parts, I think many AFOLs would prefer to build
them with the parts in their own collection, and just buy any ones they are missing.

Not only would this generate revenue for Bricklink by increased sales, it would
be an olive branch to the sellers who have been completely excluded from this
promotion.

Bricklink has done so much to build the AFOL community and it has become a verb
within our vocabulary (much like Google has in the general population). It would
be a sad irony if the sets created by Bricklink to celebrate AFOLs cannot be
Bricklinked by AFOLs.

From what I understand from reading about these sets, these aren't going
to be officially recognized LEGO sets. If that's the case, I don't feel
like they belong in the catalog. Someone will post the inventory somewhere (from
what I understand, it happens with most popular MOCs), so there is nothing stopping
a buyer from creating their own wanted list and purchase the parts without having
the set in the catalog.

Josh

They're still more official than BrickArms, which is also in the catalog...

Plus, the whole "exciting" part about the whole project, according to BL itself,
is the fact that it's an official cooperation with the LEGO Group.

So yes, I definitely see the irony.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jan 27, 2019 10:51

Subject:

Re: Parting out

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, SchmickBricks writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, SchmickBricks writes:

Is there any reason why a function to part multiple unique sets can't implemented?
For example it would save a huge amount of time if I could sort all the lots
from three copies of five different sets and pack everything away once, rather
than having to go through the whole part out process five times.

Perhaps you can change the way you work, because in my routine this is absolutely
no problem, and it's unlikely that Bricklink will change or upgrade anything.

In what way? For instance tonight I parted out three copies of two different
sets, which is done by sorting all the parts from each set into their individual
lots and then packing them away using the remarks system to tell me which drawers
the lots go into.
Is there an easier way than going through the whole process each time for each
unique set you part out? If there is I've been wasting a lot of time over
the past three years. I can't see why there can't be a function that
will allow adding multiple sets of multiple quantities to inventory at once without
having to rely on third party applications given there are almost always common
lots contained in different sets. The BrickLink catalogue knows what is contained
in each set, so surely it's just a simple matter of combining set inventories
much like it does when you part multiple quantities of the same set. In regards
to someone's comments on errors, what possible additional errors would occur
that don't already, besides possibly knowing which set any discrepancy came
from? In any case it's pretty simple to amend what you're putting into
inventory if you have more or less of something than what the BrickLink catalogue
suggests you should have.

Aha, it's because of remark based sorting.. I've never tried it and never
know how it really works. I always assumed people use software to generate the
locations or something because it seems like an awful lot of work to do it
manually. And I think you must be able to view where the part currently is located,
in case you already have it in you inventory... I'm sure there are tutorials
about this, since it's the first time I see this request, there must be a
work around.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jan 24, 2019 09:38

Subject:

Re: Feedback removal

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:

In Suggestions, mattkaupke writes:

In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:

In Suggestions, Bricks_NW_UK writes:

It depends. If a seller charges $10 for postage through IC then it turns out
the actual cost was $2, I'd be pretty annoyed and would leave feedback reflecting
that. In that case the seller is not without fault, so why should the buyer have
their feedback removed in that case?

Because the buyer knew the cost of postage when he ordered. If he didn’t like
it he shouldn’t have continued with the order.

(By the way, we are totally against instant check out!)

Of course the customer accepted that would be the cost for postage, but then
later found out it was not true and that the seller is overcharging for postage
via IC. Should other buyers be warned about that? In my view, yes.

No warning is necessary through feedback as that information is available at
checkout. We’re all adults here and should be capable of making sound decisions
on our own. Additionally, I’d say the “actual” cost is rarely the actual cost.
The label may have cost $2, the baseline price is closer to $3.50 for USPS first
class,but there are certainly many more considerations when calculating shipping
(cost of materials, labels, tape, box or envelope, fuel and time to drop it off
(if I live 30mins from a post office my real costs may be higher than yours if
you’re close to a drop off)). Yes, $10 for shipping on a $2 label would probably
be excessive but we’re not talking about excessive here, nor should it matter
since it was what was agreed on with the buyer. Any poor feedback left is just
unreasonable.

Just because you are told something up front doesn't mean you shouldn't
comment on it.

For example, sellers often say something along the lines of "New doesn't
mean mint, new parts may have scratches" in their terms. If a seller sends out
heavily scratched new parts, should the buyer be allowed to comment via feedback?
After all, they agreed that parts may be scratched when they placed the order.

I must agree with what the others have said... you see what you pay, you can
agree or disagree. I don't see why your stance would shift from agree to
disagree if you found out that what you paid was spent relatively less on postage
and more handling than you had imagined.

If everything should be priced according to what it reasonably costs, you should
also argue that a Star Wars minifig priced €20 should be a reason for negative
feedback as it only costed the seller €1. I'm really not big on capitalism
at all, but in this case I really must say the added value is a product of the
market mechanism and as long as people are willing to pay it, that by definition
makes it a fair price for it.

A seller could make some contract with a company to somehow get totally free
postage, and that would leave him with no direct obligation to charge less or
nothing for shipping to the buyers. They could charge €5, just as a handling
fee, if they wanted.

I do see though how extremely high fees - while legitimate - frustrate the buying
process. Ideally, the search results would display the price of the part and
then directly underneath "have this part at home for ..."

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jan 15, 2019 20:39

Subject:

Re: Parting out

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, SchmickBricks writes:

Perhaps you can change the way you work, because in my routine this is absolutely
no problem, and it's unlikely that Bricklink will change or upgrade anything.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jan 9, 2019 16:57

Subject:

Re: Request official BrickLink app

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, TheBrickGuys writes:

In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:

In Suggestions, KaanDurak writes:

Hi ,
I use my phone alot and I also use Bricklink alot , but the site on phone isn't
that great , so please. Bricklink create a phone app of Bricklink , it would
be easier for phone users.
I hope the staff will see this and an official bricklink app will be created.
Thanks for reading

It's in development https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1094209

wow, that post was 5 years old so it is still a work in progress??

jim

It's still a work in progress I think and it will be released at some point
when Bricklink feels like it.

But until they will add payment methods other than PayPal it's just a gimmic
to me, I am opting out for it and so are some other sellers. Of the remaining
sellers, only a small portion has Instant Checkout, so there is no real reason
using the Bricklink app if you get 10x as many results using a computer. To me
that's easily worth navigating a non mobile friendly Bricklink for.

So I guess the answer is, nope, "proper" Bricklink is not going to be mobile
friendly.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jan 7, 2019 08:57

Subject:

Re: New Part Category

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

Today I added a new category: Wheel, Accessory.

I moved 31 parts from Wheel to the new category.

That's a nice idea, thanks! And don't have to move anything around in
my alphabetical storage either

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Dec 26, 2018 12:17

Subject:

Re: Move header buttons to the left side screen

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

I agree it's way too wide. I have a large widescreen but even here "current
orders" and "filed orders" is off the screen. What you can at least do for those
two particular options (and perhaps others) is bookmark their links and add them
to your bookmark bar of your browser, so you can access them by clicking there
instead of having to scroll right.

I think before improving the interface, first of all a bug needs to be fixed.
This orders received display is way too wide because of all these columns. And
we cannot turn off columns such as additional charges, additional charges 2,
and insurance. I've never used insurance yet it takes up the center of the
display. These columns used to be mandatory for some mysterious reason and their
checkboxes were greyed out in "customize display", but now they have been enabled,
but modifying them doesn't do anything. You can check and uncheck them and
the orders display remains exactly the same. If this bug is fixed, we will be
able to cut down on the width of that page quite a bit, and it can bring a couple
of buttons back in sight. And it will make my list of received orders more comfortable
to look at, too.

In Suggestions, Pazzo writes:

Hi all,

when I am in my order page...all buttons are centered above the site.

But using an old fashioned 4/3 monitor, half of the buttons are outside my view,
and I need to use the sliding bars everytime I want to select one of them.

If all the buttons can be alligned from the left side of the screeen, this would
improve a lot.

Anybody has the same problem?

Be cool and have fun

Eric

I see now that besides this bug there's also another problem that recently
emerged. The orders pages used to have zoom levels that were independent from
the rest of the site. I remember requesting this in the past, this was done specifically
for making these pages fit. That, however, has now been undone again. All pages
have a single linked zoom level. That means you're forced to choose between
either an order list that fits but a Bricklink that's a narrow strip with
half of the screen blank, or a Bricklink that fills the screen reasonably well
but an order page that is cut off on the right side.

This still annoys me every single day but probably won't ever be fixed? I
need to choose between zooming down 30% from how I'd like to view the site
and stare at tiny letters like I'm doing right now typing this, or scroll
left and right through my orders.. I'd be OK with it if this problem wasn't
fixable but this was actually noted by the admins and fixed at some point..

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Dec 12, 2018 07:03

Subject:

Re: Coupons improvement

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, bricksofsweden writes:

Hi,

Not sure if this has been brought up in earlier suggestions but I am giving it
a go anyway.

I would like to see the possibility of creating a coupon which is valid for all
buyers. Right now this is only limited to a certain username.

Kind Regards,

Simon

You're not using instant checkout, so what you could do is mail an advertisement
to your store mailing list and tell them that you'll apply a discount if
they write some promotional code in the comment field when they place an order.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Dec 5, 2018 07:22

Subject:

Re: Automatic price while listing items

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, EpicBigG writes:

I hope bricklink sees this!

They do, but they won't do anything.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Dec 4, 2018 12:33

Subject:

Re: 40292 minifig error

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

Although they cannot sell it as a boy as depicted on the box, unless listed as
a custom minifig. No doubt in time people will wonder which minifigure they have
and not be able to match up the boy version with a minifigure in the catalogue.

Many questions come up in the forum to identify minifigures that have the wrong
hands, the wrong arms, the wrong legs, the wrong head, the wrong hair, etc. Such
is the nature of LEGO parts; they get played with and mixed up all the time.
Sellers are free to sell those minifigures as "customs", but it behooves them
to find a closely related minifigure in the catalog to sell under and either
sell it as incomplete or fix the minifigure they have to match the one in the
catalog. I don't see this scenario as being any different to that.

However, when it comes to adding minifigures to the catalog, the guidelines are
clear and were followed: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2477

If they weren't followed, we would have the inevitable question, "Why was
this boy minifigure added to the catalog when it clearly isn't shown in the
instructions?"

Cheers,
Randy

Well, I actually agree with yorbrick the "boy" should be added to the catalog.
I understand the Bricklink catalog follows the instructions and that is a good
and smart choice, but how far will we go? When I saw the set my first thought
was like "only a girl? oh wait a sec, there's the boy hair" and the box literally
has the boy on the side of the box. To me the hair seems off on the dad and he's
not shown that way either. Nor is it logical that a minifig has an extra piece
to make a marginally different minifig with no different meaning. The torso of
the child is clearly unisex (if not boyish) so in my opinion everything points
to the hairpiece being intended for the child.

If so, it begs the question if we really want to stick 100% to the instructions
in every case. I think at least adding minfigs that are shown on the box as alternates
is not such a stretch.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Dec 4, 2018 08:21

Subject:

Re: 40292 minifig error

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

[…]

Haha that's crazy, seems the person making the instructions made the mistake.
I guess Bricklink follows the instructions and not the box, so probably it should
stay like this then... Although unless dad has a job as a hairdresser or fashion
designer I do think he looks a bit off with that kids/teenage haircut

Well, we’re assuming it’s a “dad”. It could be a “big brother” or a “young uncle”
too

And anyone can change the interpretation (and minifigs) to better represent their
own situation.

I guess if dad really is a hairdresser or fashion designer, the girl's hair
could be even better

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Dec 4, 2018 07:10

Subject:

Re: 40292 minifig error

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

40292-1 (Inv) Christmas Gift Box
293 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2018
Sets: Holiday & Event: Christmas

LOL, so the Christmas giftset 40292 has a male and a female hairpiece so that
the child can be a boy or a girl (and they're both on the box). But someone
uploaded a picture where the alternate hair is put on the DAD's head, kind
of making it a dad's hairdo optionality feature

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=40292-1

Actually, it IS a “dad’s hairdo optionality feature”: there are two versions
of the instructions and each one uses different hair for the dad.
See https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1117220

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Dec 4, 2018 06:32

Subject:

40292 minifig error

Viewed:

130 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

40292-1 (Inv) Christmas Gift Box
293 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2018
Sets: Holiday & Event: Christmas

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=40292-1

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 26, 2018 07:43

Subject:

Re: Something I Just Threw Together

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

I think "figures" is good, as in my understanding of English it refers more to
physical shape than "characters". "Characters" I expect to be animate, while
the category also includes trophy statuettes, game pawns, statues/sculptures,
skeletons etc.

In General, StormChaser writes:

In General, yorbrick writes:

The idea of using the name FIGURES is a good one. Although possibly CHARACTERS
is better

I don't think we need to be that technical with this item type. The casual
user needs a basic item type name which is immediately identifiable. Figures
would encompass a wide range of items and Minifigs inaccurately described
that section of the catalog almost from the beginning.

I think the definition of what it means to be a minifigure is very important to get right.

This page is not intended to define what a minifigure is. That is handled by
this page (updating it is on my list of things to do):

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170

The list of figure types is only intended to be an informative overview of the
different types/sizes of figures which have been produced.

Droids - there aren't any!

To answer all of your questions: the list is just a framework right now and I'm
mainly interested in hearing whether members want it or not. We can worry about
the details later.

I will say that if such a list needs to become bogged down in minutiae beyond
the point of usability, then it was clearly not a good idea.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 23, 2018 11:22

Subject:

Re: Part out value may not always be accurate

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:

In Suggestions, shovhans writes:

Dear bricklink development team,

Currently the "Part Out Value" page shows the value in average, which may not
be accurate if any seller posts an item with very high, or inaccurate price.

To better represent the part out value of a set, we need to add the following
additional metrics:
1. Standard deviation of the Average value shown
2. Median value
3. Breakdown list of all items with the above metrics for each item. Additionally
we would like to see the count for each item.

Thanks
shovhans

Way too much attention is paid to average prices as it is. Just consider what
the average sold price is...

across markets/ countries

all stores big and small

stores that price fairly and those that charge add ons

all orders - single lot/ multiple lot

It is also dangerous to purchase based on part-out sold prices anyway as many
parts might have sold for an average prixe of X but in some cases there are many
100's of times of the part for sale than have ever sold!

Focusing on making the average "more accurate" is IMO a diversion and not a good
way of optimising inventory investment decisions. If it was just a mathematical
excercise to determine what to buy this place would be even more swamped with
inventory and prices would drop further.

I always vote no to these enhancements to averages for these reasons, I think
these average values mislead many.

Robert

Agreed. And then there's VAT.... Even if Bricklink would have only 1 store,
that store could still find itself in a race to the bottom. They list things,
some sell with VAT, some without... so the L6MS average will be lower than their
own prices... so they mark down... again sell some parts without VAT... average
drops again...
The more we stick to the priceguide, the more we'll race to the bottom, even
without anybody trying to price under anyone else.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 21, 2018 12:18

Subject:

Re: Projectile Launcher

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

But do you know that all the ones in Brick,Modified have a circular curve
and the ones in slope all have an arbitrary curve? Maybe that helps telling
them apart. The Brick,Modified ones you could hold a round 2x2 brick against
sideways and the curves line up. They're usually a quarter circles; the curve
starts at 0 degrees at the top, and ends at 90 degrees at the bottom. Therefore,
they're not slopes, as slopes start and/or end with a sloping angle.

How 'bout this one for an arbitrary slope?

There will always be "discussion
items".

47456 Slope, Curved 3 x 2 x 2/3 with 2 Studs, Wing End
Parts: Slope, Curved

Niek.

Ok yeah.. that one is weird.. I didn't think about these

But not a slope
either, just the most random shape ever.. I would say Wedge or Vehicle...

Same for these

47458 Slope, Curved 1 x 2 x 2/3 Wing End
Parts: Slope, Curved

47457 Slope, Curved 2 x 2 x 2/3 with 2 Studs and Curved Sides
Parts: Slope, Curved

41855 Slope, Curved 2 x 2 x 2/3 with 2 Studs and Curved Sides, Lip End
Parts: Slope, Curved

None of them are even 1 Brick high, so I wouldn't mind if those were kicked
out of the BrickMod club.

I was just thinking about these:

6215 Slope, Curved 3 x 2 with 4 Studs
Parts: Slope, Curved

6091 Slope, Curved 2 x 1 x 1 1/3 with Recessed Stud
Parts: Slope, Curved

37352 Slope, Curved 1 x 2
Parts: Slope, Curved

(wow, new? cool)

33243 Slope, Curved 3 x 1 x 2 with Hollow Stud
Parts: Slope, Curved

6191 Slope, Curved 1 x 4 x 1 1/3
Parts: Slope, Curved

To me these have a coherent story and relationship to one another and are very
understandable as BrickMod.

If memory serves, this Slope used to be something else than Slope, either BrickMod
or Vehicle? I don't think they look too well as Slopes, with their details
and multiple sides they kind of break the rules of slopes to me.

44675 Slope, Curved 2 x 2 with Debossed Side Ports
Parts: Slope, Curved

None of these things bother me personally though - I know where they are

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 21, 2018 11:52

Subject:

Re: Projectile Launcher

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Miro78 writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

In Catalog, Miro78 writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

What do you think?

That was the point of the Projectile Launcher category: to group all of these
together in one place. However, I'd prefer to wait for the launch of the
parts reclassification project to move these.

The first part of that project will be creating precise written definitions for
every category of parts. Once written definitions exist, then people will have
less room to bring out the torches and pitchforks when parts start moving.

Don't know if you noticed or not, but people sometimes want change and then
complain when it happens.

I hope the part reclassification also considers some of the modified bricks
parts reclassification, as it has become a dumping ground. I often find myself
clicking back and forth between modified bricks and curved slopes
categories as there are several bricks with slopes that to me would make more
sense to be in the curved slopes category. There are many others, and
I am sure everyone has their own reclassification wants.

The problem lies in how one chooses to classify parts, as it's in human nature
to label and bucket everything, but in reality there is a lot of overlap. Ultimately
whatever Bricklink chooses to do, there were be complaining. You just can't
please everyone, and I think the majority will be from sellers, as they will
feel more of the burden of rearranging their inventory, if they try to match
the Bricklink categories. As such it would be considerate if Bricklink would
communicate these changes effectively to ease the pain for those that would be
affected the most.

Miro

To me Brick,Modified vs Slope,Curved is absolutely fine. I never have any doubts
or troubles with it. Brick,Round is round in the XY dimension, Brick,Modified
is round in the Z dimension, and all curves that are not circular are Slopes.
I'm surprised it's Slopes vs Brick,Modified that troubles you and not
Brick,Modified vs Brick,Arch. If the curved Brick,Modified parts were moved elsewhere,
my first thought would be Brick,Round, definitely not slope.

Brick arch do not confuse me because arches have voids beneath them. Just speaking
from experience of having to click in 2 groups because some curved parts are
in bricks modified and others in curved slopes. That's just scratching the
surface. There are others as well in other categories, but as I mentioned earlier,
human like to classify things and each person classifies things based on some
definitions that do not always agree from person to person. It's a slippery
slope and ultimately whatever it becomes will be just a nuisance to some degree
to us all. Can't please everyone, and in grand scheme, it does not affect
my life all that much.

Miro

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 21, 2018 09:21

Subject:

Re: Projectile Launcher

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

What do you think?

There is also the other / older style of technic cannon, which is probably why
the newer one is also classed as technic even though it doesn't appear in
many technic sets.

32074c01 Projectile Launcher, Cannon, Round Bottom
Parts: Projectile Launcher

The Bar category is expanding a bit too rapidly to my taste, these items have
limited Bar-like constructional value, and they would do great in a Projectile
Launcher category, or called Shooters & Projectiles or something, grouping projectiles
together with the things that fire them, which are already in that category.

I guess the downside of this is if something is introduced as a projectile but
later becomes more widely used as something else. This is like the problem with
the technic cannons. They were originally used in technic sets so it made sense
at the time that they were classed as technic parts.

I wouldn't mind projectiles going in there, but of course many won't
as they will already be in other categories. So maybe it would be wise to have
a list of things that the shooter can shoot as part of the extra information,
just like windows have which glass fits with them, door frames have which doors,
and wheels have which tyres, etc.

Well, I think there's a fairly clear-cut difference between shooters that
shoot existing parts and shooters that have specifically designed projectiles
for them. But yes, some additional note about what they should could always be
useful.

The two projectiles I mentioned have specific hooks that can really only be useful
if you use them with the shooter, and I think few users will really be interested
in these parts for other purposes than projectiles. If that "Technic" shooter
would be moved, it would be awkward for its projectile to be left behind, so
at least those types of projectiles are probably going to end up there already.
So then we might as well have those two "bar" projectiles in there.

But I wouldn't go as far as proposing the 3L shooting pins there, as they've
become common non-shooting related parts.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 21, 2018 09:14

Subject:

Re: Projectile Launcher

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Miro78 writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

What do you think?

Don't know if you noticed or not, but people sometimes want change and then
complain when it happens.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 21, 2018 08:13

Subject:

Re: Projectile Launcher

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

What do you think?

Don't know if you noticed or not, but people sometimes want change and then
complain when it happens.

Thanks, ok, that makes sense - then my list is just for future reference

Personally I'd propose including the projectiles into the category, whenever
at least their first appearance was for the purpose of projectile.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 21, 2018 07:43

Subject:

Projectile Launcher

Viewed:

180 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

So.. what's the deal with the Projectile Launcher category? Currently has
one item:

15301c01 Projectile Launcher, 1 x 4 Spring Shooter with Light Bluish Gray Top
Parts: Projectile Launcher

I proposed this category so various shooters can be grouped together, since they
are now scattered across categories and in my opinion it's pretty arbitrary.
I assume this category is still a work in progress, but anyway I thought it could
be useful to post about it.

Just have a look, (I have left out variants and some projectiles just to keep
the post tidy)

35456c01 (Inv) Projectile Launcher, Net Shooter with Dark Bluish Gray Firing Pin (35456 / 35457)
Parts: Projectile Launcher

This one is in Vehicle - did you guess that? Even though it also appears as a
fixed shooter.

x110c01 Projectile Launcher, Cannon Shooting
Parts: Projectile Launcher

18588 Projectile Launcher Part, Rapid Shooter Six Barrel - Angled Barrels
Parts: Projectile Launcher

These are in Minifig,Weapon - even though they cannot be held by a minifig
or are part of a weapon held by a minifig, unlike every single other entry in
this category.

57029c01 Projectile Launcher, Cannon, Flat Bottom
Parts: Projectile Launcher

These are in the generic Technic category - which probably is a category that
we want to reduce as much as possible in general, and these shooters are massively
more frequent in non-Technic sets. Actually I struggle to find Technic sets with
them.

16968 Projectile Launcher, 1 x 4 with Inside Clips (Disk Shooter)
Parts: Projectile Launcher

This one is in Brick,Modified, even though it has pretty much exactly the same
characteristics as the one and only part that is currently in Projectile Launcher.

15403 Projectile Launcher, 1 x 2 Mini Blaster / Shooter
Parts: Projectile Launcher

This one is in Plate,Modified - while that is not altogether unlogical, I still
wouldn't guess it, especially if a Brick,Modifidish part is already in Projectile
Launcher.

[P=19020c01]

15303 Projectile Arrow, Bar 8L with Round End (Spring Shooter Dart)
Parts: Projectile Launcher

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 12, 2018 09:06

Subject:

Re: Mark a buyer as "Refunded due to non-arrival"

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:

In Suggestions, Gaston.La.Brick writes:

It happens a buyer says he didn't receive the items. When shipping using
an untracked medium, there is no way in verifying if the claim is legit. So I
usually make no fuss and either refund the total order amount (including shipping)
or re-send it (if I have the items in stock).

In these cases, I sometimes get the feeling the buyer might have done this before
and actually has received the items. But as I said: there is no proof, since
no tracking. Then I wonder: "has this buyer done this in the past before with
other sellers?". There is no way in knowing. And that's why I think a buyer
should get some sort of parameter/rating stating the number of orders that were
refunded due to non-arrival. It seems like a small feature. Not really that important,
but if it were there, it would give some extra statistics in the long run as
well.

Would this be legal? Having such a parameter also seems like a negative feedback
for a buyer. If a parcel genuinely doesn't arrive, then they get a black
mark against their name if they inform you it hasn't arrived. They may have
to decide whether to get a black mark for a low order value parcel going missing,
or just forget their consumer rights so as not to get a black mark.

I don't know about legal but BrickOwl has it and I think it's quite useful.
If it's not legal, it could at the least be recorded internally and scammers
could be blocked automatically.
Right now scamming is ridiculously easy - just place a couple of orders, say
none of them arrived, get money back, and have no negative feedback or any consequences
at all. I have not really had such scams, luckily, but in theory it's a walk
in the park.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 11, 2018 15:53

Subject:

Re: Mark a buyer as "Refunded due to non-arrival"

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Gaston.La.Brick writes:

It's again one of those features that BrickOwl has but Bricklink probably
never will because of lack of development. I would vote yes, but I've been
doing that for over a decade and how many suggestions were even looked at...

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 5, 2018 05:54

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

I'm going to post back here later today with all my
proposed changes (I may have to take this in steps)

I'm going to switch gears from sets and parts for a bit and work on Gear
items. This section of (Other) items is so large that I'm not going to solicit
comments/suggestions on individual items until I get some of the obvious stuff
cleared out. If anyone wants to share ideas before then, feel free. Here's
the list:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1113841

These are not high-profile items like other items are and a goodly portion of
them have no items for sale, so I don't anticipate much disruption with Gear
things.

Wow. LEGO has produced so much peripheral rubbish

I wouldn't like to be
in your shoes with all of that, seems daunting. I agree, better to focus on items
that are bought and sold. Actually it's already above my expectation that
every fart LEGO produces gets a place in the Bricklink catalog with picture,
info and all. I don't mind that whole categorisation at all.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 07:55

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Mostly positive changes, thanks for the update. I am sorry but...reeeeaally people.....
the beehive.... noooooo

As WoutR already pointed out, Beehives aren’t made by bees but by minifigs… er
humans.
Bees live in hollow trunks or such cavities, they don’t build such nests.

The beehive discussion really has me tearing
my hair, to me it feels like there's some wheel and people go "hmmm... 'door'
maybe? or 'aircraft'?"

Just promise me when LEGO releases a bird nest, then SPIDER-WEB, BEE-HIVE, and
BIRD-NEST will all be Animal,Accessory

This part already is:
1. a (man-made) beehive,
2. a cotton-candy,

And it can be:
3. a wasp or hornet nest,
4. a Chinese lantern,
5. a Bibendum head,
and undoubtedly many many other things, especially when other colours will appear.

It already has too many very different usages.
Therefore, we can’t categorize it according to its usages.
Therefore, we only can use its shape and connectivity for categorization purposes.
(Moreover and anyway, shape and connectivity should always be the main features
used for categorization as usage generally isn’t known when you stumble upon
the part and are using the catalogue to find it.)
And this part is cone-based, sort of, and can go on a minifig head.
So it’s a Cone or a Minifig Hat.
QED

Now I'm confused, I thought this beehive shape is a cartoonesque representation
of bee/wasp nest in trees (that actually look like this)? Or are they like
jugs or something like that made by beekeepers? I tried to google but I don't
find any "real" version (man made or otherwise) of this type of beehive, that's
why I'm still not sure... :o
So my comparison with spiderweb could be off, though it doesn't exactly matter
for the Animal,Accessory argument in and of itself because they are usually man
made anyway.
But you're right if this part will be used for other stuff in the future.
It would be much like the fez situation then. I don't actually expect it,
but let's see.

I'm actually ok with minifig hat

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 07:31

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:

[Teup] writes:

Please think about it. If a SPIDER-WEB is Animal,Accessory then a BEE-HIVE, surely
is Animal,Accessory too?

I did think about it and you are right. However, if someone has a bright pink
bee-hive in their hand, they acquired from a job lot, and they did not know what
it was _ would they know it was a bee-hive and think to look in ' Animal,
Accessory '? Under this situation I don't think Cotton Candy/Candy-Floss/Sugar-Fluff
would be the first thing they think about either.

Oh, I didn't realise they were used like that. I still think it should be
at Animal,Accessory, because if you are going to categorise on shape, then you
might as well do it for all parts, all foods for example: Ice cream cones should
be cones, carrots should be cones or bars, sausages should be bar.. but no, I
think it's ok things get categorised based on their first appearance / most
logical appearance. I think in the case of the beehive it is clear that the part
was designed as a beehive, and then later reinterpreted as candy floss. If they
designed a candy floss part from the start, it would not have these characteristic
bee hive bands. In my opinion it's just part of LEGO creativity that you
often see in modern sets (especially modular buildings) that happens to all parts
(feathers, skis, plumes, ...) and doesn't affect their catalog identity.

Still, I hadn't realised that before so I do understand the reasoning now.
That does make the choice for Cone a bit more bearable

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 06:51

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

Mostly positive changes, thanks for the update. I am sorry but...reeeeaally people.....
the beehive.... noooooo

Please think about it. If a SPIDER-WEB is Animal,Accessory then a BEE-HIVE, surely
is Animal,Accessory too? I even saw someone even suggesting Minifig,Utensil and
I wonder where on earth that came from, as it has neither to do with minifigs
(except as headgear), nor utensils... The beehive discussion really has me tearing
my hair, to me it feels like there's some wheel and people go "hmmm... 'door'
maybe? or 'aircraft'?"

Just promise me when LEGO releases a bird nest, then SPIDER-WEB, BEE-HIVE, and
BIRD-NEST will all be Animal,Accessory

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

I made a spreadsheet of all the comments I got for parts movement and only a
few parts in the (Other) category were contentious. The rest seemed to be agreed
upon. So, now that I have carefully reviewed all of your comments, here is my
new plan with one last chance to comment on where these are going.

BTW, clearing out the parts in the (Other) category will NOT have any effects
like the merging of categories did. In fact, a day or two ago I already tested
this by creating the category Ball and moving the ball on the list there. The
category merging created the error, not adding new categories.

As always, this list will help anyone to see where these parts have gone for
the next three years (except for anything moved to Minifigures - I'll update
that list as necessary):

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1113041

Two babies - move to minifigures

Still the plan.

Ball - create new category titled Ball

Already done.

Beehive - move to Cone

Got a lot of feedback on this, but decided in the end Cone was the most appropriate
category for this hard-to-define part. Already moved and retitled.

Han Solo in Carbonite - move to Minifigure

In spite of mixed responses, still the plan. This is shown on the box front
as a figure with the other set figures.

BrickHeadz glasses - move to Bar

Only one person had a problem with this, stating that this was not bar-like.
However, bars can be round, can't they? The suggestion was to move it to
ring, which I think I will heed and title it Ring, Double or something like
that (the Ring category has already been created).

Chains - create new category titled Chain

Still the plan.

Chest armor - move to Large Figure Part

Still the plan. One objection based on the fact that these weren't used
in large figures, but the mechs in which they were used are large compared to
minifigures. Other alternative is to create a Mid-Size Figure Parts category
and that doesn't seem wise. I think the part will fit in Large Figure Part
fine.

Finials - move to new Ball category

Only one objection to these too, with suggested category being Plate, Round.
I don't feel like they fit there. My thinking is that they are balls with
a stand. Still open to other opinions - in the absence of any, will move to
Ball.

Hand, Mechanical - move to Large Figure Part

Still the plan. See above.

Human Tools - create new category titled Accessory, Human Tool

No objections raised. Still the plan.

Infinity Stones - move to Minifigure, Utensil

I was swayed on this one. I like the idea of a Minifigure, Treasure category,
but ultimately decided to go with Rock as another user suggested. The Rock category
isn't large and these will fit well there.

Light Cover - move to Cone

This one was quite contentious. I'm going to hold off on it for a bit until
I get the rest of the stuff looked at. Ultimately, I'm leaning toward the
solution three users suggested: Bar. So Bar with Light Cover or something
like that.

Obscure Item - leave in other

Plan unchanged.

Slides - create new category titled Slide

Not many people objected here, but some felt the rope bridge was a problem and
wanted to see these all combined with stairs and conveyors in one category.
The problem would be titling that category. You may notice that there aren't
many (if any) part categories which have titles like Stairs, Conveyors, Bridges,
and the Like. Part categories are simple, direct, and singular. That was wise
and I'd like to keep it that way. So I'll hold off on this one, too,
for further thought and await any further comments.

Power Bursts - move to Minifigure, Utensil

The consensus here was a new category titled Effect. Not a bad idea, but it
seems like it would be hard to understand. Even Power Effect seems questionable,
though better. It would be great if we could come up with a title to describe
all forms of effects (waves, flames, power bolts, etc.) and group them all together
as suggested.

I thought Plasma Effect would be perfect, but Wikipedia tells me that flame is
not a plasma. So what about Plasma / Gas Effect? Still no mention of flame
in the title, though, which some wanted to see. Open to suggestions and am hoping
for some along these lines.

Rings - create new category titled Ring

New category already created (currently unpopulated). Someone suggested moving
the Atlantis keys to Minifigure, Utensil. Undecided on this, but will decide
soon.

Rip Cords - move to new Accessory, Human Tool category

No major objections. Still the plan. They're used solely by humans to propel
the Ninjago propellers.

Rope Bridge - move to Stairs

See above. Tough one.

Rotor, Spinjitzu - move to Propeller

Still the plan.

Shaft Clip - move to new Accessory, Human Tool category

One strong objection, but I still feel like this is the best place. The only
natural thing about Ninjago Spinjitzu sets are the figures. The handles and
everything attached to them, even the propellers, are technically human tools.
We don't have to get crazy technical about all that, but the Wing Holder
and Shaft Clip only fit with each other and have little use elsewhere (although
I have seen brick separators used in MOCs). They're no different than the
rip cords you pull on - all part of an assembly to launch stuff. I really believe
they fit here, but will entertain final objections.

Skull - move to Rock

A couple of people suggested Brick, Ornamental as a new category and I think
that is a good idea. However, I don't believe the time is right. That can
wait until we go into the parts reclassification project (which, based on what
I've seen, is going to stir quite the controversy). For now I'll put
it with the other very similar item already in Rock.

Spike - move to Minifigure, Utensil

Many people commented on this and the consensus was Minifigure, Weapon. So there
it goes. The alternative solution presented was Animal, Body Part.

Spiral Pole - move to Hose

I really haven't looked closely at this part, but I think this is still the
plan.

Spring - create new category titled Spring (some of these in Technic which could
be moved)

No objections. Still the plan.

Spring Shooter - move to Brick, Modified

I'm really glad I started this discussion because you guys came up with a
great idea: a category for all parts that shoot stuff. They're currently
scattered around the catalog. So the plan is to create a new category titled
Projectile Launcher and move this there.

Star Wars Multipack - move to Minifigure, Utensil

Another somewhat controversial one. This will be wrong wherever it goes because
the parts are varied and the suggestion of a new category titled Multipack ain't
bad at all since there will be more of them in the future. Still have to think
about this one some more (still interested in suggestions).

Tassel - move to Minifigure, Utensil

Varied suggestions on this one. I think the new Chain category as someone suggested
would be most appropriate since it is essentially a chain with two links and
stuff on each link.

Waves - create new category titled Wave

See Plasma Effect above.

Wing / Sail Holder - move to new Accessory, Human Tool category

See discussion above.

Wing - move to Wing

No objections. Still the plan.

Zipline - move to new Accessory, Human Tool category

Now going to Hose with a modified title to account for the change.

My plan for the future involves creating specific written instructions/guidelines
for classifying things (sets, parts, figures, etc.). This will make it much
easier for all of us to know what is going on and to quickly see if something
doesn't belong where it is. It was needed from day one, of course, but perhaps
it is better coming now that we have a better idea of the wide variety of items
produced by TLG.

My goal is to make these guidelines simple, direct, and easy to follow and I'm
convinced that I really have my work cut out for me.

And yes, as someone
mentioned, it would ultimately be better to create the written standards first
before moving (Other) items. The reason I'm doing it this way is to get
a feel for how the community feels about classification and to analyze my own
approach to it. Everything I learn here will help me understand how to create
guidelines and I don't think very many (hopefully none) of these parts will
need to be moved again.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 06:44

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:

[Teup] writes:

... Everything [in my warehouse] has been meticulously designed trusting
the catalog is a stable entity. Changing it this drastically will give me a great
deal of work, it already took me 2 weeks of making excel sheets to come up with
the design I have now and it was really a difficult puzzle to make everything
fit in the limited space that I have. ...

Why do you let BL dictate how you organise your stock? It is your
physical LEGO elements, not Bricklinks. It is your warehouse. If
you use the 'Remarks' field for your warehouse location and/or warehouse
categories, why do you need to use Brcklink categories? The 'Remarks'
field comes up on orders, and can be adjusted by lot rather than just part (Bricklink
categories are only based on parts and not lots). Use BL for a guide, or suggestion
on how to catgorise your warehouse, but do not use BL to organise your warehouse.

The BL catalog should be buyer based, your inventory (using 'Remarks'
field) is your catalog supplier based just for you.

Then I would need to write remarks for each and every lot. I have frequently
discussed category sorting vs remark sorting, and I just really do not believe
that remark sorting would work for me. It has alot of drawbacks and also I do
not see how it can be done properly without Brickstock, which is useless to me
as it does not feature the European priceguide.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 06:36

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Take this as just one vote, but that's taking it too far for me.

Agreed, and thank you for sharing how your sorting system works. I want to encourage
discussion, but I do not plan to make major changes to a whole bunch of parts.
This project is still a ways off and we will have written definitions of part
categories and plenty of discussion before anything is moved.

The things I anticipate could move (not will, but only could) are things
which people have argued about for years, like Tile, Modified vs. Plate, Modified.
See the last example given in this post:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1112599

Once we have written definitions of each part category, then some things may
need to be moved to comply with those definitions. But even the definitions
will be open for discussion. I'll probably write them all out first and
then present them for discussion and possible modification. I'm not going
to be like the dude on the mountain handing down edicts on stone tablets.

The goal of all of this is to reduce confusion and disarray, not add to it, and
I am aware that sellers have systems in place based on the catalog. If the catalog
is inconsistent in certain places, though, we should not force future generations
to live with that because it is inconvenient for us to change in the present.

Anyway, I don't see how anyone could object to uncategorized items finally
being categorized, so right now that's what I'm focusing on.

Thanks for taking note, that sounds reasonable. I guess my point is that there's
correcting the catalog and reimagining the catalog, and as long as we stay with
the former, that's all good.

Yes, I understand the trouble with Tile,Modified. What I associate most with
tiles and what gives it the "tile" feel to me is the groove, but I also understand
that there are type variations in this so that probably disqualifies that characteristic
for categorising. An option is moving everything with studs to Plate,Modified.
I have never thought of those big plates with missing studs in the middle as
"tiles", nor do their dimensions match anything that reminds of tiles (in fact,
NONE of them have dimensions that we see echoed in the tile category!). This,
by the way, is a really good example of where for me the comfort limit is. A
bit of hassle, but it would be just within the range of what I can handle without
having to redesign and reassign things, and I could see the benefit.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 05:18

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

55 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:

so I was wondering whether this should go into new category that contains other architectural objects

An interesting idea which you might bring up again when we get into the parts
reclassification project. In the end, though, you have to keep in mind that
people will be looking for the nearest thing they can think of to the unidentified
object they have.

So the masonry profile brick, for example, is definitely used as a decorative
architectural object. In reality, though, it is simply a 1 x 2 brick which has
been modified and that is likely where people would go looking for it: the Brick,
Modified category.

Again, though, we can discuss all of this when that project starts. It will
still be a little time until then.

Take this as just one vote, but that's taking it too far for me. I'm
ok with the Energy Effect category and believe it's an improvement. But moving
such large volumes of basic parts to a new category is stretching it to far for
me. It's exactly the example I mean where there is minimal gain (a masonry
brick really still is a brick modified) and the cost is pretty big. I have hand
built my storage walls and their sizes are all designed for the existing categories.
I have coded software to analyse the frequency of use of all of the bins and
position those at arm height. Everything has been meticulously designed trusting
the catalog is a stable entity. Changing it this drastically will give me a great
deal of work, it already took me 2 weeks of making excel sheets to come up with
the design I have now and it was really a difficult puzzle to make everything
fit in the limited space that I have. That's something I will gladly go through
again (and actually risk I will not get things to fit a second time) if it means
catalog improvement (such as the Energy Effect category, which is both uncontestably
better and a small volume of parts - great improvement), but when it is about
moving substantial volumes of ambiguous parts from one partially adequate category
to another, I will need to cast a "nay".

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 2, 2018 11:09

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon"

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I am very patient, but I do get ill-tempered when I see that reasonable, valuable
member feedback is dismissed or ignored (I am not accusing you of this!) I understand
that these changes are aimed at improving the buyer experience but please also
put yourself in the shoes of sellers with thousands of lots and hundreds of thousands
of parts who are packing orders every day: imagine dealing with a diaspora where
100+ items suddenly move to 100 different categories and information about their
former home is difficult to find (how many members know how to find the change
log and would they even think to look there?)

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1113001

Being one of those large sellers... It will not disrupt anything on this end
in the slightest, as I categorize my parts in my inventory myself and I know
where almost every part is just by image alone.

I also know where everything is, but I think it's not the point. A pilot
can fly an aircraft with a broken auto pilot, but it doesn't mean auto pilot
doesn't need to be working. I think it's just good practise to have everything
correct and consistent. You never know when you need it. Maybe someone else has
to pick the order, or maybe you need to look at some stats to determine how to
reorganise storage, etc.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 1, 2018 09:45

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

Here's the plan: I'm going to post back here later today with all my
proposed changes (I may have to take this in steps) and give people a chance
to comment.

If you do have a comment/suggestion on where these parts are going, please suggest
an alternative location. Before you comment, look at the situation carefully
and present a good argument about why the proposed category is inappropriate.

Parts:

There are 98 Other parts. Going in order by the standard way of displaying these
(Item Name, Up):

Beehive - move to Cone

No, I don't see this at all.. Animal,Accessory!

Human Tools - create new category titled Accessory, Human Tool

Yes, findability for buyers is the number 1 concern but I just want to add that
as a seller I too would really like it if the minfig,utensil category is split
somehow. For me it's THE bottleneck of the shop, even with my own sub categorisation.

Infinity Stones - move to Minifigure, Utensil

I'd say rock if diamonds are also rock.. The rock category does bug me a
bit though, the only way a diamond and a BURP are both rock is just linguistics:
The English language happens to use the same word for them, but to all non-English
natives they are different concepts entirely and it's unexpected to find
them in the same category.

I can see a Minfig,Treasure category that includes infinity stones, gems, diamonds,
coins, ingots...

Power Bursts - move to Minifigure, Utensil

No, they are not utensils, not items to use for something. They are effects,
just like fire and lightning.

Spring Shooter - move to Brick, Modified

Ok I think something needs to be done about this whole shooting deal because
it's currently shooting in all directions!

-So, these are supposedly Brick,Mod...
-Then there are rubber arrow shooters that are classified as "Technic".
-Classic cannons are classified as Minifig,Weapon even though they are not weapons
that minfigs can hold, while all other Minifig,Weapons are.
-And there is a net shooter that is now in the Vehicle category even though it
also appears as fixed weapons.

To me, none of these make sense. They're not bricks, they're not technic,
they're not minifig weapons, and they are not vehicle parts. Can we have
a category called "shooter"? All Bars that are really projectiles can be moved
there too, as they will rarely be used the way other Bars are used, and the Bar
category is getting a big clogged.

Tassel - move to Minifigure, Utensil

No, not a utensil to me. I feel like all current utensils are really items that
minifigs use, and this one would really stand out as not meeting that criterium.

Waves - create new category titled Wave

I assume that it should include flames, water, lightning (and I would say power
bursts...)? It is very likely that this group of items is going to expand, I
totally see new lightning and fire flashes being released the coming years. They
risk either crowding the (Other) category if they do not look "wavy" enough,
or making the "wave" category something really unclear. I see lightning bolts
are already described as "wave", I would not expect that. But I really do see
it makes sense to group these kinds of things together. But I'd prefer a
different name... something like "effects" or something in that direction...

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 1, 2018 08:58

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon"

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, TheBrickGuys writes:

As far as I can see this part is not a weapon, and I can't find it even once
used as a hollow hammer. It only appears in brick-built weapons where it features
alongside parts that also are not classified as weapons, such as barbs and chains.
Unlike the lightsaber, which really is a weapon the way it is, this part
is not a weapon.

To me it doesn't really matter which classification is used (bar or weapon)
just so long as both are in it. They share the same characteristics so it would
make sense to have them together in the same category.

Jim.

Yeah, that makes sense. I think if you look at the stats, by now, both are most
commonly used as bars. Besides, I feel like it's more elegant to view it
as a general part being applied for a specific purpose (such as lightsaber),
than to view it as a very specific part taken out of its context and used completely
differently - especially when that happens in the majority of the cases it is
being used.

And, the 4L Bar is called "Bar 4L (Lightsaber Blade / Wand)", so I'd say
the other one is something like "Bar 1L with top and bottom stud (Lightsaber
Hilt)"

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 1, 2018 08:45

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon"

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Catalog, chetzler writes:

My shop Is category based so if there is going to be major movement going on it would be
good to have some kind of prognosis so I can move stuff on time and make sure
there will not be any complications with some major reclassification update.

Same here, I'd imagine many seller's shops are organized this way. If
items are going to change categories there ought to be an easier way to see the
category history than the change log--something evident at a glance. Perhaps
a good idea would be an option to show legacy names, that way new members aren't
distracted by the additional info and established sellers with large inventories
don't experience disruptions.

For example:

By Default:
98100: Cone 2 x 2 truncated

With Legacy option turned on:
98100: Cone 2 x 2 truncated (formerly Brick, Round 2 x 2 truncated)

And since we are talking about virtual items, it is of course entirely possible
for things to be in two separate systems at once. One classic catalog that the
existing users are used to, and one new classification system that works with
tags or whatever other new system seems like a good idea. That way, improvements
can be made without having to pay the cost of giving up what is good about the
old system. I have actually no idea if this is a good idea

But just putting
it out there as a thought.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 1, 2018 08:38

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon"

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

for me as a seller, the only items I struggle with and get confused about are
exactly the ones that have changed category.

Yes, I understand that. The problems for newer members occur when established
members like you and I have memorized the catalog (or portions of it) and the
inconsistencies therein seem natural. Yet, newer members come in and see the
disorder in our system and find it troubling. We force those new members to
comply with old ways of doing things until they're established members.
Then they won't want things changed, of course, but newer members will complain
until they become acclimated to the system and then newer members complain, etc.,
etc., etc.

So why do newer members and even established members complain (as I have myself
many times)? Because, while the catalog is organized fairly well, there are
still things which can be made better.

I'd like to see a system that is clearly defined with easy-to-understand
rules and organized in the best ways possible. I know this will cause disruption
to some degree, but it is worth the disruption if future LEGO fans can visit
BrickLink and find a clean, neatly-organized, consistent catalog.

Yes, I do agree when it is about inconsistencies - of course I'm willing
to relearn those. I just hope that things will not be completely revamped when
they're not really in need of improvement.

For example, a part like this:

6005 Arch 1 x 3 x 2 Curved Top
Parts: Arch

Has characteristics of both these parts depending on if you look at the outer
curve or at the inner curve:

6091 Slope, Curved 2 x 1 x 1 1/3 with Recessed Stud
Parts: Slope, Curved

2339 Arch 1 x 5 x 4 - Continuous Bow
Parts: Arch

Changing it from Arch to Mod is not exactly wrong, and I can imagine some would
even prefer it. If the catalog would be built up again from zero, I'd say
there's a 50/50 chance it would end up in either category. But changing it
would not change the fact that the part is ambiguous, so the gain will be none
or minimal. The fact that parts are sometimes in a place where you didn't
expect it, will always remain. The cost of the change on the other hand would
be quite big, for sellers like me - both in terms of memory and in terms of storage.
If there would be significant changes, it could change my storage alot and cause
a domino effect where, in an extreme case of changing even parts like these,
I'd have to redesign my entire store layout and hope that it will all still
fit.

That's what I meant with targeting the problem cases vs rebuilding the catalog,
moving around dozens of common parts. I'm not expecting it will be that level
of drastic, but just wanted to be sure to have made this point before the work
starts.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 31, 2018 21:34

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon"

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

Is the part reclassifications project going to affect many parts?

I have no idea. In fact, I haven't thought about it at all. Right now I'm
only focusing on cleaning out items in the (Other) category. You will have plenty
of notice if you keep an eye on the forum and Catalog Roadmap page.

To make an attempt at answering your question: this project will not launch until
we have clear written definitions for every single part category. At that time
any parts which do not fit their category definitions will be moved. Again,
I have no idea how long any of this will take or exactly how disruptive it will
be.

Ok, thanks for explaining. It is probably a good thing some things are revisited,
but - a bit ahead of time but better now than later - I very much like to cast
the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" vote here.

For buyers, a part being ambiguous/confusing will not be rid that nature when
it moves to another category, so there isn't always so much to gain. And
for me as a seller, the only items I struggle with and get confused about are
exactly the ones that have changed category. Even years later, I still remember
they used to be different and get confused about it. Everything else I'm
100% fine with. I think it's like learning a language: people have a great
capacity for learning and memorising even illogical things, no need to worry
about that. It's only when things are being changed the mistakes start to
come in.
I fully support fixing obvious inconsistencies and mistakes, of course. I just
hope it's not going to affect dozens of common parts. Not expecting any decisions
anytime soon, just wanted to have made this point in time

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 31, 2018 21:03

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon"

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, MidwestBrick writes:

In Catalog, DeLuca writes:

One bit of inconsistency that has been bothering me for a while, is that, though
part (64567) is classified as a "Minifig, Weapon", its modified variant, part
(92690), is listed in "Bar".
Though I do not care where these parts are reclassified, I do want
to see them in the same category.

64567 Minifigure, Weapon Lightsaber Hilt Straight
Parts: Minifigure, Weapon

92690 Bar 1L with Top Stud and 2 Side Studs (Connector Perpendicular)
Parts: Bar

Fixed. What's next?

92690 Minifig Weapon, 3 sided Hollow Hammer
Parts: Minifig, Weapon

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 31, 2018 20:58

Subject:

Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon"

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, DeLuca writes:

One bit of inconsistency that has been bothering me for a while

We have not yet begun the Part Reclassifications project. We are only working
on cleaning out the (Other) category. Please save any ideas you might have about
general part reclassifications until such time as we launch that project.

When we do you will see it in the forum and on the Catalog Roadmap page.

Is the part reclassifications project going to affect many parts? My shop is
category based so if there is going to be major movement going on it would be
good to have some kind of prognosis so I can move stuff on time and make sure
there will not be any complications with some major reclassification update.

As for this bar and weapon example, I would prefer them to be just the way they
are, I am never confused about this and I will be if it changes because of the
confusion. People are excellent at memorising things, and as for findability
of parts you are not yet familiar with, whether they are both in "weapon" or
both in "bar" there will be an equal amount of hits and misses.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 28, 2018 06:24

Subject:

Re: Another New Catalog Thing

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

I am wasting no time in making your lives marginally better, my friends.

For your convenient reference, we now have a list with links and descriptions
of known part variants which are not distinguished by BrickLink:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940

This list is majorly incomplete and I could use some assistance in completing
it. If you're bored and want to gather additional variants not yet shown
on the list, please respond to this message with your list of variants (macro
tags appreciated, but not absolutely necessary).

To save others duplicating work, you might reply first saying you're going
to be working on it.

2343 Minifigure, Utensil Goblet
Parts: Minifigure, Utensil

Exists with and without ring at the bottom, as is already described. Looks like
you can already expand the list using info that's already currently in the
catalog? Because I didn't see this one in your list yet.

6124 Minifigure, Utensil Magic Wand
Parts: Minifigure, Utensil

Exists with long and with short handle (picture is long handle, short handle
is the new type).

2488 Minifigure, Weapon Whip / Plant Vine
Parts: Minifigure, Weapon

How detailed do you want to go?

This part exists with closed bottom and more
recently with hole in the bottom.

And of course all 1xX bricks and plates that exist with closed or open bottom
tubes.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 25, 2018 18:19

Subject:

Re: Price guide improvement

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:

In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:

Interesting point - might need a bit more detail from Bricklink now. We understand
how the currency thing works in certain areas but we thought that the underlying
base currency for all prices was USD which Bricklink converts everything to and
then uses the xe.com exchange rate as and when necessary. So if what you are
saying is correct and the prices being shown for each country on the price guide
are converted directly from their currency to gbp that is a different story and
more thought would have to go into this. Unfortunately the help page isn't
really clear on how they are holding the currency from the outset. What you are
suggesting that if someone in India adds items in rupees then the system would
have to convert from rupees to gbp as well as any other currency and that would
be a different proposition entirely.

I would imagine so, as converting a to b to c doesn't always give a to c,
even at xe.com.

Agreed but the way most multicurrency systems work their is a base currency as
well as a reporting currency as well as individual, currencies. You define what
is the base and you advise how you wish that to be reported. You also have things
like spot rates, rate tables etc, which just about covers all angels. Here it
looks a little bit like a free-for all in trying to accommodate all frequencies.
In fact if this was the case the price guide is almost useless on current items
listed - as for those items sold - you would need to see what rate they were
converting at when they were sold and factor that in. All in all vry messy and
inaccurate. Mixing 37 different currencies into gbp is problematic at the best
of times.

Hmmm.

For example, right now, 1 USD = 0.878393 EUR and 1 USD = 0.777160 GBP. Also 1
EUR = 0.884895 GBP. (They use six sig figs).

1 USD = 1 USD, so 0.878393 EUR should equal 0.777160 GBP. Yet this gives the
rate as 1 EUR = 0.884752 GBP, different in the fourth figure to the EUR-GBP rate
they quote.

Sorry if this came up before and I missed it, I just can't spot it right
now.. anyway.. not to be annoying but to me the million dollar question is why
actually do you want to know?

If somehow you need it for tax purposes, for tax agencies it is not required
to be that hardcore precise, and for personal business diagnostics and
stats those tiny fractions of difference probably aren't that interesting,
especially with the prospect of fluctuation in the future anyway.

Anyway, if you are working (partly) with software, what you could always do to
distill the exchange rate is refer to the GBP version and the USD version of
the priceguide, extract the two "current average" numbers and divide one by the
other. That gives you the exchange rate that was used. (Probably best to do it
with an expensive part or add up a couple of parts, to get the decimals more
accurate)

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 25, 2018 18:07

Subject:

Re: We have a new Catalog Admin!

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Hello everyone,

We are pleased to announce that we have made another appointment. StormChaser,
who was appointed as Inventories Administrator last year, has now been promoted
to Catalog Administrator.

This is an important step for BrickLink. We haven't had a Catalog Admin appointment
for over nine years, and this is the first time someone has moved from the Inventories
side of the system to the Catalog side.

We believe StormChaser is highly qualified for this position. In addition to
an outstanding year as an Inventories Admin, he has had years of intense experience
with every area of the BrickLink Catalog. He has made many thousands of corrections,
uploaded an enormous amount of new data, and has solved a number of LEGO mysteries
over the years. So we're very pleased he has agreed to accept this position,
and we look forward to his activity in this new area.

We will be be making another appointment soon to fill his former position as
Inventories Administrator.

Russell

Congratulations StormChaser! From what I saw on the forum you must be very dedicated
and I am sure we all owe you alot. I also tend to agree with your general opinions
about Bricklink. Well deserved!

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 24, 2018 14:06

Subject:

Re: Price guide improvement

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:

We are aware that nothing is going on on the classic site whilst the development
team focus on Bricklink XP, so we will make this as short and sweet as we can.

Having contacted the forum and put all elements of this together it is plain
that a subtle but important change needs to be in place for the price guide screen.

Understanding full well what happens with the 'sold at' columns those
can be left as they are until the whole price guide is revisited, whenever that
is going to be. The current items for sale, however needs s small but important
change, in our view. It is currently not possible to determine the currency conversion
rate for those figures. It could have been anyti8me in the last hour or this
hour or whenever.

Please simply add the two fields which are used to convert e.g. for example $1
= 'x' £;s and £1 = 'x$). This will enable any member, buyer or seller,
to at least get their figures correct when working offline. This is not a complicated
change/fix - it merely requires placing those fields on that screen each time
they change. The fields are held somewhere in the system even if it is a temporary
table, so it should be relatively straight forward to display them on the price
guide screen.

Thoughts ?

I thought current items for sale were all displayed using the exchange rate of
this moment. Why is it that important though if the exchange rate would be an
hour older?

By the way, in case you didn't know and it's useful - you can always
flip the currency of the priceguide by changing the vcID parameter in the URL:

Euro: https://www.bricklink.com/priceGuideSummary.asp?vcID=2&vatInc=Y&a=p&colorID=110&itemID=3005

Dollar: https://www.bricklink.com/priceGuideSummary.asp?vcID=1&vatInc=Y&a=p&colorID=110&itemID=3005

I just wish this was properly interfaced (and that there was an easy simple to
understand API to access these things without downloading the page and run into
download limits imposed by Bricklink)

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 23, 2018 07:58

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 10404-1

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

10404-1 (Inv) Ocean's Bottom
571 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2018
Sets: Building Bigger Thinking

* Change 2 Part {Magenta to Dark Pink} 24866 Plate, Round 1 x 1 with Flower Edge (5 Petals)
* Change 1 Part {Magenta to Dark Pink} 24866 Plate, Round 1 x 1 with Flower Edge (5 Petals) (Extra)

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 13, 2018 04:38

Subject:

Re: Note to seller is not very good

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:

In Suggestions, randyipp writes:

I would love it if the "note to seller" when a buyer is checking out were handled
more like a message and show up in the messages inbox, with the notification
number. The note looks like a message when using "contact your buyer about this
order" link but can easily be missed by sellers. It has happened to me a few
times, and can be frustrating if you see it too late!

Thanks,

Randy

The 'note to seller' is also in the order confirmation email.
Do you read the confirmation email?

Perhaps the order of the order details page should be customizable. Then the
notes can be moved to the top between the Details and parts section.

That's a good idea I think. On the internet we are kind of programmed to
completely disregard mumbo jumbo at the bottom of pages (like "© 2018 BrickLink
Limited. All rights reserved. Some LEGO® sets contain small parts that are NOT
suitable for and may pose a hazard to children under 3 years of age. LEGO® DUPLO®
sets have larger pieces which are specially designed for children under 3. LEGO®
is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize,
or endorse this site. Use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms
Of Service and Privacy Policy."). Something above the parts list would be much
more noticable, and also the message may affect how the order needs to be sorted/packed
so it's kind of a bummer if you forget to scroll down and read it only when
you reach the end of order picking

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 13, 2018 04:35

Subject:

Re: Note to seller is not very good

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, bricksahead writes:

.. How do you know that you've never missed a message?

Well, how do you know you packed all your orders correctly? Just a feeling, you
never know for sure of course if it comes to actual evidence. But as soon as
I open an order with a message attached to it I notice that right away, it's
the very first thing I notice. Right as you open the order, where there's
otherwise nothing, there's suddenly an icon, and a line "This order has an
attached message (view it)". In my opinion that is very clear. To the people
who do miss it, isn't simply a bigger font, bigger icon, enough?

If I would get the message in my inbox also, as sort of a duplicate thing, it
would make things less clear to me as it will show up as an item I need to handle
while I already did or already am going to. I will be more likely to miss
real messages that way or mix up something. The "(un)read" flag would lose parts
of its meaning as there will be messages that have already been read but still
appear unread in the inbox.

In my opinion anything regarding the processing of an order should be strictly
on that order page, and everything else - general inquiries, service - should
be in the inbox. I don't go through messages and orders crosswise, I have
a list of orders I need to do and a list of messages I need to work through and
I do one of these tasks at a time.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 12, 2018 18:14

Subject:

Re: Note to seller is not very good

Viewed:

58 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, randyipp writes:

You mean just as a "regarding order ..." message and not attached to the order
itself? In that case, no!

I don't process orders and read messages at the same time. I always read
the attached notes and never missed one. But if it's troublesome to others,
maybe change placement, font, something in the interface. But definitely, for
bricks sake, doooon't detach it from the order page... :o

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 5, 2018 12:54

Subject:

Re: Restrictions kill sales! I'm outta here!

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:

In Suggestions, tEoS writes:

No, I'm simply stating that the "rocket science" argument is flawed. It
implies that you don't need the intellect of a very scientific person, as
if said person has the capacity to know how to do everything very well.

Er, no. The “rocket science” argument means it’s intellectually difficult and
outside the capabilities of average people. It doesn’t imply that the person
should be very scientific, just very intelligent. And it doesn’t imply a “rocket
scientist” would have the capacity to know to do everything very well, just rockets.
The same argument is often rendered as “it’s not brain surgery.”

If you think a task needs someone with rare abilities, then it is “rocket science.”
Otherwise, that means you think anyone could do the task, and then “it’s not
rocket science” applies.
Well, you could also think that it both doesn’t need someone with rare abilities
but it also demands attention and time. Then, it’s both not “rocket science”
and not “not rocket science”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 5, 2018 09:45

Subject:

Re: Restrictions kill sales! I'm outta here!

Viewed:

72 times

Topic:

So, you are saying it is difficult. We're talking about sellers here, people
who decide that they can handle selling Lego. Not every person who signs up on
Bricklink has to understand how to set up shipping methods. But I think it is
only fair that for the small portion of those members who really are serious
enough to get into selling, it should be expected of them that they're able
to handle it. If they're not, they should either ask for help or just use
some other way to sell Lego that they do understand (In fact, I think setting
things up at Brickowl is easier than at BL.)

In Suggestions, tEoS writes:

I grow tired of reading the old "it's not rocket science" argument, as if
it somehow substantiates a person's claim.

And I think on the seller's side of the interface, it should also warn that
not all weight/volume/value/country combinations are covered. I think it's
the sellers responsibility to make sure that they have it all covered, it's
not rocket science. But it is true it takes some concentration and staring at
the screen to make sure everything is OK, so an algorythm that checks if there
are no holes sounds like exactly the type of thing we have computers for.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 5, 2018 07:09

Subject:

Re: Restrictions kill sales! I'm outta here!

Viewed:

72 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:

In Suggestions, tEoS writes:

Instant checkout isn't so simple. You can think you have all bases covered,
but later discover something that prevents a buyer from ordering.

In addition, we have no way to test our setup or see a buyer's cart to troubleshoot
an issue.

I use instant checkout, though I would never recommend, as I'm certain to
have lost orders because of it not functioning quite right.

This is where IC could be improved. The current postage cost could be displayed
when in the store and get updated after each addition, and flagged up if an item
is included that stops the IC working. This is pretty much how it works on BO
- it is great to see if adding one part increases the postage costs, you can
then decide whether the real cost for that part is worth it.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 5, 2018 05:32

Subject:

Re: Restrictions kill sales! I'm outta here!

Viewed:

100 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, npl writes:

Twice today I spent time making LARGE orders (two different vendors) for about
$30 or so USD+. The first had a shipping box size restriction I didn't see
until I was checking out and the seller did not respond to a query for a 'bypass'
in time to be useful. I bought what I wanted on Amazon instead. It will be
here day after tomorrow! Just now I put together another order of over 150 items,
spent 20 min, only to learn it had a ^%#^*^ LOT average of a dollar, and again,
I was required to ask for a bypass. Screw that. I don't have the time for
this nit-noid nonsense. So here's the suggestion: Price your stuff for
what you want and either make the restriction clear on the main page or can the
restrictions. As for me, I'm head for e-bay where I am sure I can get what
I want and where any restrictions are clear.

A size restriction sounds ridiculous, I never saw that... How can a buyer possibly
anticipate this? There's no way of knowing how big your order is going to
be, nor is it the job of the buyer to be a mathematician even if it was. I think
sellers should have shipping methods ready for all sizes.

But sounds like the lot average problem could actually be fixed by Bricklink
itself. If they flag stores who use it properly, it will solve this frustration
instantly for every store that uses it. And is this lot average indicated in
the listings, in the same way that minimum order is? I really think it should
be.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Oct 1, 2018 09:05

Subject:

Re: 90-percentile as new average price ?

Viewed:

77 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Gaston.La.Brick writes:

I noticed the highest prices of items sold (or of items that are on sale), have
an out of proportion influence on the average prices.
Example: when 9 people sell (or have sold) an item at €0.10 but 1 person has
sold that item for €10.00, the average price would be €1.09
You may say this example is not realistic, but it's not that unrealistic
either. Check out item 6558. The avg used price of last 6 month sales is €0.023,
while the majority of the sales are for less as €0.02
If you look more closesly, you see a few sales at a high price, but not a lot.
(Note: someone even sold a few of these for €1.00 !)

It's my suggestion to change the calculation of avg price to use the 90-percentile
method. So only the 90 percent (lowest prices) are taken into account. That way,
the top 10-percent highest prices are not taken into account when calculating
the avg price.
To avoid weird behaviours, the rule could be in place only when there are 10
items sold/for sale.
Example would become an avg price of €0.10

Another somewhat more complex method would be the use the median. Not the mathematic
average, but the middle price: 50% of the sellers have a lower price, 50% of
the sellers have a higher price.

What do you guys think?

This suggestion comes up now and then, I am not in favour, as it makes the priceguide
less transparent but most of all it promotes the race to the bottom even more.
In a different kind of design, with a different role and usage for the priceguide,
I could be in favour. But the way Bricklink is set up now, I think sellers very
strongly evaluated based on their prices not being above average - at least that's
how I used to use Bricklink when I was a buyer. I think in the current design,
we need those quirky up-effects, not because they make for the most ideal and
scientifically sound kind of priceguide, but to balance things in a context where
down-effect already prevails.

What surprises me though is that you suggest it to include only the lowest. Why
not middle 90%? What you propose seems to me like a race to the bottom on top
of a race to the bottom.. That sounds like you prefer the priceguide showing
just low prices over accurate prices. I really don't think prices on Bricklink
are unfair at all considering all the work that goes into running a store.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Sep 3, 2018 14:14

Subject:

Re: Request for addition in checkout process

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, StoreToys4Boys writes:

Request for addition in checkout process and terms of store at beginning of purchase.

Hello Admins of BrickLink.
I would like to request an addition in the checkout process that will simplify
the way I handle my lot limitation versus $.
I’m sure some sellers would like to add there comment to my request but could
I ask them to restraint themselves to make it official that I’m doing a request
to the admin but I need to receive an answer that will be available to everybody.

I received another order that do not comply with my store terms and I don’t like
to cancel orders since almost all this orders are from new users with 0 feedback
.

I think everybody here sometimes received orders like 100 lots for $20 or more.
The way my storage is done, I can say that a 100 lots orders will take me around
100 minutes to fill, pack, print. Even if I run for it, I can maybe done it in
50 minutes.

From a first time user, this is not funny to spend an hour or two and get cancel
at the end because the order done did not respect store terms.
The concept of limitations in orders are widely spread. Even Lego website for
parts have limitations.

I like to suggest a simple way to fix my problem and this will be a great way
for everyone to fix their goal. This is an addition needed but this would not
affect other factors if you want to keep them.
At checkout, can you add a factor of division versus amount in $.
Ex: I would like my store to accept orders with maximum 20 lots for $25
In other terms, I can take orders that will go over 125% of lots versus dollars.

To make it easier to understand we could also go with % calculation.
A 1% factor will be an order of 20 lots for a purchase of $.20 minimum purchase
A 10% factor will be an order of 20 lots for a purchase of $2 minimum purchase
A 50% factor will be an order of 20 lots for a purchase of $10 minimum purchase
A 100% factor will be an order of 20 lots for a purchase of $20 minimum purchase
A 125% factor will be an order of 20 lots for a purchase of $25 minimum purchase

So at checkout every order will be calculate by the factor we want. If you don’t
want any limitation on the number of lot just leave it by default to 1%.

That’s easy to control and the buyer will get a message with short explanation
of the limit concept for that store in the beginning of their purchase. I think
it’s a much better way to define every need of different sellers and nothing
is lost or gain for sellers who don’t care about lot limitations.

That will be a great way for buyers to be inform right away and not having deception
at the end of their orders.

If you accept, I will be now removing the $20 minimum purchase in my store and
removing all the bulk minimum that break my head all the time.

Please Admins,can you come up with an detail answer of your views on this .

I would like to thank you for your time and keep on doing the great work.
Toys4boys

I don't actually understand this suggestion and explanation. Seems it's
about low lot values again, what exactly is not satisfactory about the minimum
order and minimum lot value settings we currently have?

Also, if it takes that long to sort an order, I think there are loads of possibilities
for improvements. A 100 lot order should take me less than half an hour for sure.
I have category based storage.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Sep 1, 2018 05:19

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

Yes, that is correct. In a world with unlimited stock everyone could buy as much
as they like without limitations

When I upload a part-out there are always
a few lots that I just know will not survive it through a month. I had some ninjago
quivers and armor parts that could've served several buyers but someone bought
all of them right the day after I uploaded the part-out, even though it was listed
at current average price. I don't really complain, because it's nice
to sell.. but still, I will never encounter these parts again and only had them
in my store for 1 day. Not a disaster but it would have been nice to feature
them a bit longer without overpricing.

I guess a big reason why this would be useful is the existence of this tipping
point. Either you list at a normal price and you sell all at once because you're
a high quantity seller, OR you price them slightly higher but that makes you
end up alot lower in the search results so buyers pick other shops instead and
leave you alone entirely. Ideally you'd sell more gradually but for some
parts that seems hard..

In Suggestions, patpendlego writes:

It seems like this proposal is not to aid buyer(s) but to overcome a limitation
as seller.

Just thinking outloud:
Selling new items, and as seller you want availability of all items/colors in
your store all the time for all buyers? Correct? So I would say just add more
stock. But your own resources (to add more stock) are likely limited, as seller
you cannot add indefinitely. So, to overcome this limited resources issue, the
solution is to shove the limitation on to the buyer(s)... somehow...

I guess in a way this is always the case, either by limiting lots, or raising
prices, or other means

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

Funny you should say that, I logged on to BO just now and found that a Chinese
guy has bought out 2 lots

Now my store offers round 1x1 plates in all colours
except trans clear

I don't have a proper workaround, because the remarks option makes my inventory
appear smaller than it is. That's not good for my administration and inventory
management. You could list separate lots, but I don't know, seems rather
tedious to me. There could be some alternatives I haven't thought of, if
you have any let me know

In Suggestions, patpendlego writes:

First of all: be my guest, if you want to use this option go ahead it's your
store and your items to sell. No problem at all.

But.. just for arguments sake... what would be the buyer experience of this?
It's all psychology, so think it through I would say, place yourself in a
buyer shoes.

Also... technically, wouldn't there be many easy ways to simply go around
this 'restriction'? I don't know... just a thought... aren't
you just trying to influence something which is just an idea in your head but
has nothing to do with reality?

I think I would not use this option.

Enjoy,
Arnoud

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.

So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks

This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.

Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Sep 1, 2018 04:03

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:

In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, danielclark writes:

I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.

I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.

The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.

No, it should not be visible anywhere, just like a stockroom items is not visible.
If I have a lot of 5000 but limit it to 500 per buyer, it should show as a 500
size lot everywhere on Bricklink.
I intended it as a more automated version of the current way to do the same thing,
listing 500, switching on "retain" and writing "4500 left" in the remarks.
I agree it would be annoying to see things you couldn't buy.

There is a small downside that if a buyer places an order for 500, then happens
to browse the store again while not logged in, then they see that more stock
is available. So they log in and the stock is no longer available to them as
they have a current order.

It would take more than just a few changes. For instance, if you set a max of
100 per customer, and someone buys 100, when would your shop show 100 in inventory
again? If it gets shown right away (assuming you have enough set up), the customer
would see another 100, and could potentially add them to his existing order.
If you expect BL to block this particular customer from seeing the new lot, when
would this "lock" be lifted? At payment time? After shipping? Maybe never? Or
do you accept them being able to see the new 100 and do an order addition, thus
being able to buy them all in several order additions?

There would be quite a few checks etc needed, with many options for fringe cases
messing things up.

I do appreciate the idea, but I don't think it would be easy to implement.

Niek.

You're right it would take a bit of extra infrastructure. But I think if
items would be hidden (or quantity substracted) to buyers who have an order that
has not yet reached "packed", that should be fairly unambiguous. That would suit
my purposes and I hope that to the others who voted yes that's good as well.
That should be enough to solve the buyout issue.
So yes, it would take for users to see something else when they log on than when
they log off. But I think this should be easy to make and it's already the
case with user blocks, currency conversions and VAT calculations that apply as
soon as a user logs in. Though I just hope that putting all displayed quantities
through this extra bit of code would not slow the website in any way, otherwise
it wouldn't be worth it.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 05:31

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, danielclark writes:

I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.

You're right about that. Though I don't think it's really a problem
that the quanitity would change - right now prices also change when you log in,
because of currencies and taxes.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 05:21

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

Funny you should say that, I logged on to BO just now and found that a Chinese
guy has bought out 2 lots

Now my store offers round 1x1 plates in all colours
except trans clear

In Suggestions, patpendlego writes:

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 05:10

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:

In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:

This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.

There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.

I agree completely. If I want to buy, for example, ~30 blasters (to replace
the stud-shooters in Battlepacks), and I can only buy them in batches of 5-10
at a certain store, I will purchase them from a store with no lot-limits,
and will not make three (or more) orders from the store with limits.
Aside from driving away buyers (particularly new buyers, large-scale MOC-ers,
and army-builders), there is the potential for abuse of such a system. If a store
sets a minimum-buy, then sets low lot-limits, it could possibly force buyers
to purchase numerous items that they do not need/want (to raise the price of
each cart), in order to be able to buy what they do want (and in the desired
quantities). While in most cases, such a scenario as described above would simply
drive the buyer away, but, when the items in question are rare, buyers may have
no choice other than to be gouged, if they want the aforementioned items.

You are free to buy wherever you like and if a seller does not find buyers because they don't offer enough, they know they need to buy more or make more available.

Though you say it in disagreement, this is actually what I said (that I would
just buy what I want from a store without lot-limits, and that those with
limits will lose buyers). Additionally, your suggested solution seems to run
counter to the stated purpose of increasing a store's sales (as it
essentially proposes that stores revert to the current system - In which case,
why make a significant change to the system?).

The scenario where it's part of a bad mix with features is as much a complaint about those other features as it is about this one. Minimum order is also a fine feature which by itself already 'forces' you to buy things you don't need.

While you are correct that I dislike minimum-buys (and I already avoid stores
with ones that are unreasonably high), I can usually bump the price up by purchasing,
say, six Stormtroopers, instead of five. If there is a five-lot-limit on Stormtroopers,
however, I would need to find an additional $4-5 item (that I may not need) to
raise the price of the cart. Minimum-buys are already fairly common, so adding
lot-limits on top will just hurt stores that have them even more.

This is really not any different from me shopping for Star Wars minifigs and a store having only some of them while some others they are keeping in their stockroom and are not available to me.

It, to me, is more like going into a store and finding piles of (40299) (the
Kessel Mine Worker), but only being able to buy them in batches of two, having
to go out of the store and come back in in order to buy more, and having to buy
a CMF or two each time (representing shipping/fees/etc).

40299-1 (Inv) Kessel Mine Worker polybag
19 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 2018
Sets: Star Wars: Star Wars Solo

I think that's an extremely common situation, and I don't see why keeping part of a lot in stockroom is that fundamentally different from keeping some lots in stockroom and offering others.

The difference is this: If am browsing through a store and see only five of a
piece that I want (but in a higher quantity), I may buy all five. If I am browsing
through a store and see 400 of that same piece, but I can only buy five,
I will probably not buy any. I recognise that this may seem illogical,
but (to me, at least), it is a psychological difference between seeing what I
can have, and seeing what I could have, if not for an imposed restriction.
This results in frustration, similar to that regarding one-per-box CMFs (particularly
Percival Graves); LEGO could include more, but they choose to create
artificial scarcity. Lot-limits are, in my view, much the same.

You should consider not just the side where you do not find the 30 blasters. You should also consider the side where you do find the 30 blasters because a reseller or another big guy was unable to buy all 6948 of them. They can be cheaper without being instantly gone.

In the case of the 6948 blasters, the problem could be solved within the confines
of the current system, by simply listing the blasters in batches of 60 at any
given time. This prevents the mass-buyout that you fear, but also does not drive
buyers away (or to frustration) by limiting the blasters to, for example, ten-per-order.

To you this is not visible, but I lose some lots that I could have served many buyers with to their full satisfaction.

I do understand and appreciate that this side of the issue exists, and I am not
trying to negate it. I am simply trying to bring the concerns of a buyer
to the table, as nearly all who have commented on (and supported) this proposal
are sellers, so that all perspectives can be examined before making a
significant change to the purchasing system.

So I guess alot of the concern is remedied if what's left in stock really
is invisible. That way, you can hardly blame a store for not selling it any more
than you can blame a small store for not being large

What I meant to say was, I think there's no need to worry lots will suddenly
become small. It's a tradeoff to the seller, because big lots really sell
better. He will have to find the sweet spot of having ample parts available while
sheltering them from large scale buy-outs. I'm thinking more in terms of
thousands, or perhaps Voldemorts that I want to sell individually and not all
10 at once. For some things there's this tipping point where either you are
stuck with them or they are all bought instantly.
But really, nobody understands the value of being able to offer large lots more
than I do. I'm the guy who parted out 20 Ninjago cities just for that purpose.
Spent all my savings just to get big lots

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 05:02

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, danielclark writes:

I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 31, 2018 04:59

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Geniac writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

...to bar the effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.

I have no desire to bar anybody from buying as much of my inventory at once as
they want. I'm here to sell Lego. If somebody wants to buy all I have of
a part, that's fine with me.

Shaun

So you leave the field 0

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 20:42

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, danielclark writes:

I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
The shop simply appears as a smaller shop, so yes, they will pay for it by showing
further down the highest quantity list just like you say. The seller can't
eat the cake and have it too

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 20:15

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:

In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:

You're making it sound like this option will force you to do certain things,
but that's not the case at all. You are free to buy wherever you like and
if a seller does not find buyers because they don't offer enough, they know
they need to buy more or make more available. The scenario where it's part
of a bad mix with features is as much a complaint about those other features
as it is about this one. Minimum order is also a fine feature which by itself
already 'forces' you to buy things you don't need.

This is really not any different from me shopping for Star Wars minifigs and
a store having only some of them while some others they are keeping in their
stockroom and are not available to me. I think that's an extremely common
situation, and I don't see why keeping part of a lot in stockroom
is that fundamentally different from keeping some lots in stockroom and offering
others.

You should consider not just the side where you do not find the 30 blasters.
You should also consider the side where you do find the 30 blasters because
a reseller or another big guy was unable to buy all 6948 of them. They can be
cheaper without being instantly gone. To you this is not visible, but I lose
some lots that I could have served many buyers with to their full satisfaction.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 19:47

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, WhiteHorseMatt writes:

In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:

In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:

[…]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]

One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.

But as a Bricklink seller?

There are lots less overheads involved in selling 10 items to one buyer, than
one each to 10 buyers.

But at least you will have 10 buyers rather than 1

Buyers are always limited in what they can buy. A buyer won't see the difference
between a seller offering their stock in doses and a seller who does not have
alot of stock. It will absolutely bring more buyers and it is used widely by
online stores and actually by most physical stores as well. Many physical stores
have stockrooms and will fill up gaps in the store inventory whenever they appear.
As I explained, if someone from outside the VAT zone takes a whole lot that is
cheap for them, that leaves alot of my regular market without those parts. I
would much rather serve alot of buyers to their satisfaction rather than 1 Chinese
reseller. It would enable me to offer parts at lower prices, too. It's difficult
to stay in a competitive price range for local markets which are most relevant,
if it makes you appear extra cheap to buyers elsewhere, who will buy you out,
reduce your lot count, and thereby reduce your number of orders (which is mostly
linked to lot count).

This appears, like lot limits, to be a "solution" for sellers who believe the
only way to make money is to keep their customers from taking up their time filling
orders.

That's a pretty extreme point of view, basically what you are advocating
is to abolish the stockroom option and allow buyers access to everything a seller
owns. I think many sellers use the stockroom option and do not want to offer
everything they have on hand straight away and all at once. This is just a tool
to use the stockroom more efficiently. It's not similar to lot limits in
any way, that is intended to make orders smaller and it's something I would
never want to use. This suggestion is aimed at serving more buyers with the same
stock and be able to dump parts and have sales with greater effect.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 19:23

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, enig writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

I like the idea. I really do and it would be super useful. But just as with many
things - it works well if sellers use it for the actual purpose that you have
outlined here. If it starts to be abused it would have a potential to ruin many
things.

What would stop sellers from creating a new lot for every single item they sell
and set it to 0.01 , (higher for the more expensive stuff ofc) to work as a form
of an advertisement. Now they have all the listings at the top. Imagine 15 sellers
doing that. 50 sellers?

That would also mess up the avg listed prices, as well as 6 month avg since some
of these would actually sell.

Just look at the superlot listings of CMF's. Averages become useless. Average
prices for the most part actually are useless anyway.. but try explaining
that to a customer.

Would this trick actually help and generate some sales for these sellers? Probably
not a lot, of at all. A little more elaborate usage, however, probably would.
Heck, I myself would gladly give away a couple EUR worth of cheap parts for free
that every single seller has an over-stock of anyway, if it also helped to make
a sale of other items that are priced well.

Ever went to a supermarket just to get that awesome deal that you saw
in an advertisement?

And came back with a trunk-full of stuff? Oh yes.

You have some good points and I agree they need to be addressed in some way should
this feature ever make it to implementation. You're right the priceguide
for current listings would appear lower but maybe the by-quantity priceguide
would be OK. Maybe there should also be a minimum quantity, although then it
quickly becomes tricky where to draw the line, and expensive items like minifigs
should be OK to list just 1 of.

However, while these issues are real, do keep in mind it's already possible
to do this, but just manually by using remarks and retain. So it won't be
a 100% new mechanic, just something that exists but will become more prominent.
And people who are blessed with understanding of the obscure BL API or who are
developing third party tools may already make this feature available by supporting
certain tags in the remarks field.

I agree with you that these are issues that need to be remedied somehow, either
by accomodating to the effects it causes or by limiting excessive use. Either
way I think it's really worth solving that, because the benefits can be pretty
great - sellers could get more sales and buyers could find more complete inventories
as well as lower prices, if the lots are protected against instant buy-outs.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 15:52

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, WhiteHorseMatt writes:

In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:

In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:

[…]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]

One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.

But as a Bricklink seller?

There are lots less overheads involved in selling 10 items to one buyer, than
one each to 10 buyers.

But at least you will have 10 buyers rather than 1

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 10:07

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

68 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:

In Suggestions, axaday writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

I have this thing with 1x1 bricks for excample.
I don't want to overprice, but because of VAT not applying outside the EU
I tend to lose them all very quickly to overseas buyers if I don't, and when
I do, nobody buys them..

What happens if you lose them?

Then he doesn’t have enough to lure, er, attract other buyers.

(Just kidding with the vocabulary. It’s a genuine concern for a seller to have
variety and staples.)

Exactly, when I have plenty of them in grays, black and white, I have alot of
buyers for them, but then sooner or later there's always that guy who buys
them all

Actually buyers should be happy for this feature, as overpricing is the alternative.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 09:19

Subject:

Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

74 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good?

Isn't the intended effect of offering products for sale that customers buy
them? Shouldn't the primary goal be to offer the customer what they need?
And if they need all the items in a certain lot, shouldn't we allow them
the delight in purchasing them?

There may be a specific need in your store for always keeping a certain amount
of items in a lot set aside, but I am at a loss to understand why. In an effort
to solve one problem in your store, you may indeed be creating another.

I think it is actually quite common practise for sellers who are not looking
to really get rid of their store to sometimes keep some items in stockroom and
not offer them. The way I see it, it is either one or the other; Following your
logic the stockroom should not exist, or, if we accomodate for sellers keeping
some things from sight, we should also have this feature in order for that to
be more effective.

You can still offer people what they need if you allow, say, 500 of some slope.
There's a difference between a buyer who needs 500 and, say, a reseller from
China who buys out 5000 all at once. I have this thing with 1x1 bricks for excample.
I don't want to overprice, but because of VAT not applying outside the EU
I tend to lose them all very quickly to overseas buyers if I don't, and when
I do, nobody buys them..

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 30, 2018 08:55

Subject:

New parameter for lots: max per buyer

Viewed:

316 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 28, 2018 17:33

Subject:

Re: Ability to Sort Inventory by Total Size

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:

In Suggestions, VOTB writes:

In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:

One of the many ways that I personally change my pricing is simply based on how
much space those items take up to store them. An example is, I believe I have
about 200 6x6 plates. This takes up a good amount of room to hold these, of
which, maybe I would want to price these lower to possibly move them to free
up space. Another example is large Wheels. Regardless, it would be beneficial;
to other than knowing what items are large but also to know how much space is
being used in comparison to others if they were able to sort by total Size which
would be Quantity times the sizes that BL already has established. This would
help compare space being used for 2 x 4 plates vs 6 x6 plates vs 1x1 round plates
and also be another way to run sales on items that are large that maybe we forgot
we even had.

Thanks for the consideration.

The real question is the size of a piece listed as a data point or simple
text. It seems like this could get pretty complicated describing so many three
dimensional pieces. Once you start looking at slopes and brackets shape and
volume get harder to calculate. I guess a 3D Studio model of each piece could
do the work.

I am still fairly new to this system but could sorting by weight/piece and weight/lot
do this? (I know this is not a current feature)

- A heavier piece would likely be bigger and take up more space.
- A heavier lot would likely take up more space, even if the piece is small.

This would let you see that drawer of 1000 1x1 bricks is likely taking more space
than the 2000 1x1 tile.

This utilizes an existing data point. The only thing is that some wheels are
hollow and are quite large, but a smaller tire could weigh more. From what I
have experienced so far, wheels and tires just take up a lot of space no matter
what.

Overall, just a volume calculation would be nice. From there it shouldn't
be overly difficult to simply "imagine" how much space that volume is taking
up. But knowing that X piece or type takes up a Y amount would be useful, especially
for those whom have limited storage space to begin with. It wouldn't have
to be exact as that is tough to do, but it would also help for a price analysis
too. I would rather have 1,000 1x1 tiles vs 4 Large Tires, thus the room is
more important to utilize for some items vs others. If I could sort by volume
of space being used, then it would be easier to possibly push out the larger
items, especially if you haven't notice that they continue to accumulate.
(each of us have our own storage solutions) I can open a drawer and visualize
all of this, but it is of course easier if the computer tells me what my bulk
items are and I can make adjustments on the fly vs having to look them all up
individually.

It would easily be possible for the system to sort according to volume. All volumes
of all parts are either know or estimated, as they are being used by instant
checkout all the time.

Being able to sort by weight though would already suit your purposes I think.
If we're talking about some 50 lots you want to discount, it's not really
torture to go over the list and skip the odd compact part in the list.

I do wonder what this would do to the prices. It may encourage a race to the
bottom for large parts, and blowing holes into inventories, and I wonder if it's
really in anyone's interest. I totally understand why you would want to discount
big parts, I've also been doing it and have been thinking about it, but I've
eventually decided not to do this anymore and simply create more storage space
for these parts. Having a balanced, well rounded inventory is more important
to me.

Big parts usually mean less frequent visiting of that area of storage. Fewer
visits per liter, so to speak. There are always some drawers or bins near the
ceiling or near the floor where you don't really like to be. I planned my
storage so that such parts would end up in places like that and now they don't
bother me anymore

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 28, 2018 12:01

Subject:

Re: Crappy pictures for similar parts.

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, zux writes:

Just found out someone has added two parts that need to be distinguished as they
are slightly different but pictures doesn't provide any visual clue. Basically
pictures are useless since there is no difference whatsoever.

Parts in questions:

44301a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on End with Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge

44301b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on End without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge

These are slightly better, but difference is barely visible:
[P=44302a]
[P=44302b]

Why there's no picture with both items placed side by side helping in distinguishing
the difference?

How did this slip into catalog?

I also like it alot when there are are pictures showing the difference, and I
think everyone does. But that's far from always the case, and that's
just the way it is. You can always take some yourself if you want to see more
of those.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 07:06

Subject:

Re: Differentiate in SALES

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, StarBrick writes:

Sales are nice thing, right? Scoring a bulk load of 1x1 plates you so desperately
need for a long overdue project helps you move on!
When 70% of the sales announcements concern shops that do NOT ship to you, the
nice efforts turn into an ever growing deception....

So here's my suggestion: have a SALE announcement link to the shipping terms
of the store so there will be ONLY announcement visible that actually DO ship
to your country.

Ever working on a more pleasant environment.

StarBrick

It could be a good idea, reminds me of my suggestion for an American subforum
besides the language specific fora as I often find myself ending up in threads
that I have no knowledge of and that have no relevance to me, but then again
the entire forum needs to be chucked and replaced by a proper 21st century forum
in general so let's not try to fix an oldtimer with tape and elastic bands.

Anyway, actually I wonder - and this is an open question - are sales posts any
good at all? As a seller I've posted several and never noticed any effect,
and as a buyer it's time consuming to plough through as it is not immediately
clear if the sale and/or the store is serious and relevant. Maybe just get rid
of them in general or do others have thrilling sale experiences?

Anyway I'll vote yes.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 9, 2018 11:23

Subject:

Re: need new filter function for this website

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, SGTENIGMA writes:

i was instructed to go thru paypal and enter all their info in order
to buy their products. instead of going thru bricklink to get thru to paypal.
in other words, they wanted to circumvent the percentage you guys make when each
sell happens.

There is absolutely no relationship between the way you are redirected to PayPal
and whether or not the seller pays fees. Fees are paid over all non-cancelled
orders. (So it was you who made Bricklink miss out on their fees, not the seller

)

Besides, I don't really understand this course of action in general, I'd
say either you don't care, in which case you do nothing, or you care, in
which case you report a seller to have them banned. The issue you describe (were
it accurate) and the proposed solution of personally not seeing certain sellers
don't really match in my opinion.

"NEUTRAL - canceled. due to paypal being frustrating. not sellers fault."

So you don't blame the seller after all? Why then neutral? You fail to pay
for the order, the seller provides you with cancellation and as thanks/sorry
you give them neutral feedback?

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 9, 2018 11:18

Subject:

Re: need new filter function for this website

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Teup writes:

In Suggestions, SGTENIGMA writes:

)

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Aug 9, 2018 11:15

Subject:

Re: need new filter function for this website

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, SGTENIGMA writes:

)

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 21, 2018 17:13

Subject:

Re: Suggestion: Hide Posts From X FB ratings Feat

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:

would like to suggest adding a feature to the 'My Discussion Forum Settings'
page:

just like you can put members on your 'ignore list'
i'd like to see a feature that would allow me to ignore posts initiated by
members with feedback rating below X (X would be set by the user) it will be
an OPTIONAL feature as i'm sure not everyone will have a use for it.

The feature would EXEMPT(not ignore) posts that initiated by members who have
admin status.

Thanks for considering.

Well, I guess with suggestions there's always the "what if everyone uses
it" scenario to consider, which in this case would mean nobody would help new
members with their questions. I don't think they want that to happen..

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 16, 2018 18:48

Subject:

Re: What's the deal about bluish gray?

Viewed:

63 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, LeGoLem writes:

Thank you guys!

I should have run a search on the Internet. I found this now: http://www.brickpile.com/articles/grey-bluish-gray-stone-grey-or-blay/

In Colors, LeGoLem writes:

I am looking for gray bricks and part, but anywhere I look people only sell dark
or light bluish gray instead of regular gray parts. Why is that? Where are the
good old light gray parts? Why did regular gray become so rare?

I had always believed 100% the change was made to save money. That was something
I respected. But now I read this for the first time https://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1791

Whoa, was it really that dumb? That's one of the most pathetic things I read
in a long time

and I don't even know where to start.. 1. they don't
even save any money on the change?? 2. I don't even believe that since to
me as an artist the pigments actually do look alot cheaper 3. how can you give
such a dramatic change so little thought 4. what does it even mean when someone
says "next time I will listen to you as well as a group of kids before I make
my decision"

4. how can you apologise so pathetically and give absolutely
nothing and not even make the smallest bsh*t gesture of saying you will pay more
attention next time and literally write there will likely be more "mistakes"
5. ...
It would really have been better if they had not written anything at all. IMO
They don't deserve to have apologised.. Glad I never read it at the time

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 14, 2018 17:20

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 76036-1

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests

In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:

In Inventories Requests, Teup writes:

It's not an accessory.

This is an area of the BrickLink catalog where there is inconsistency. Any changes
made to minifigure assemblies should ideally be system-wide, which would involve
policy changes and multiple new catalog entries and deletions of existing entries.

I'm open to that, but I do not have the final say-so in matters such as these.

In this particular instance, the proper route would be to submit a new minifigure
to the catalog with photo. We typically don't change the inventories of
minifigures because we don't want buyers or sellers to end up in a bind.

I don't think that much needs to change, this figure is the only situation
I am currently aware of that something that is "biologically" part of a body
is removed for the Bricklink figure.
But I do get your point about modifying minifigs. Too tricky since there is a
picture that has it without that part and sellers have already been listing them.

I'm curious however how many have assembled/packed them the Bricklink way
and how many did it what I think is the right way (if you look at the instructions
and every picture of the figure). When I packed them, I didn't even have
a second of doubt that 1 of these 5 parts could be not a bodypart. There also
exist crab pincers and such that are "handheld", plus this part is literally
in a bodypart category. Apart from this minifig, the Bricklink catalog always
made perfect sense to me.

I don't have any of these figures anymore, otherwise I would at least submit
a picture for a possible addition.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 14, 2018 13:04

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 76036-1

Viewed:

20 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests

Huh? Surely this can't be intentional? If it is an accessory, why are the
4 on his back then considered part of his body?

It's not an accessory..

In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:

In Inventories Requests, Teup writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

76036-1 (Inv) Carnage's SHIELD Sky Attack
81 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2015
Sets: Super Heroes: Ultimate Spider-Man

* Delete 1 Part 55236 Red Appendage Spiky / Bionicle Spine / Seaweed / Plant Vine

Comments from Submitter:
Part belongs to minifig

This part is considered a hand-held accessory for this figure. Hand-held accessories
are not included in minifigure inventories and this request was not approved.

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=200

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 14, 2018 13:02

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 76036-1

Viewed:

20 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests

In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:

In Inventories Requests, Teup writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

76036-1 (Inv) Carnage's SHIELD Sky Attack
81 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2015
Sets: Super Heroes: Ultimate Spider-Man

* Delete 1 Part 55236 Red Appendage Spiky / Bionicle Spine / Seaweed / Plant Vine

Comments from Submitter:
Part belongs to minifig

Please do not delete this part. It is used in Carnage's hand as a weapon.

Cheers,
Randy

As I explained the part is part of the minifigure. It is its hand, not a weapon.

I now have to buy them from another seller because I sold the minifigs and according
to Bricklinks these arms should still be in mu inventory..

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 14, 2018 04:54

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Minifig sh187

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

Minifig No: sh187 Name: Carnage - Short Appendages

sh187 (Inv) Carnage - Short Appendages
Minifigures: Super Heroes: Ultimate Spider-Man

* Add 1 Part 55236 Red Appendage Spiky / Bionicle Spine / Seaweed / Plant Vine

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 14, 2018 04:51

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 76036-1

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

76036-1 (Inv) Carnage's SHIELD Sky Attack
81 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2015
Sets: Super Heroes: Ultimate Spider-Man

* Delete 1 Part 55236 Red Appendage Spiky / Bionicle Spine / Seaweed / Plant Vine

Comments from Submitter:
Part belongs to minifig

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Jul 12, 2018 15:06

Subject:

Re: Block fresh buyers (0) from my store?

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Admin_Cheyne writes:

In Suggestions, ericchuimk writes:

For a long time, there has been a lot of new buyers with (0) feedbacks ordering
from my store but ended up not paying, which I have to manually cancel the order
after a few weeks or so. Sometimes Bricklink charges me service fee across the
month for these orders that are not paid and not shipped, which I have to wait
for a refund the next month after the order is cancelled, resulting in me paying
for things upfront without the necessity of it.

I am getting frustrated about new users making orders but not paying. It is a
burden for me (spending time calculating shipping cost and handling fee, sending
invoice, being billed by Bricklink) ending up to no avail. Sure, I could leave
a negative review on these buyers, I could ban them one by one... but what's
the point when they can easily make another fresh account and do the same thing
over and over again.

To deal with this, I have 3 suggestions:

1. I vaguely remember there was an option to disallow buyers below certain points
to buy from my own stop... it was probably Yahoo auction or somewhere else I
don't really remember... But I think this should be an option for sellers.

2. Perhaps the system has to make it even more clear that one legally HAS to
pay after clicking Order. Because apparently, people don't read anymore,
even warnings.

3. Charge sellers after the order has been paid, not when they are made. Imagine
if someone made a fresh spam account, orders EVERYTHING from my store but not
paying for weeks. I will end up with getting charged by Bricklink, and my sales
hindered because they are off the shelves. And said buyer will suffer from little
or no consequences whatsoever.

I hope changes will be made to secure sellers from such unfair treatment.

Hello,

The suggestion you have stated is already in place. Visit My Store - Settings
- Management, scroll down to Seller protection and check the box and save your
settings.
As for the cancellation and fee, All sellers should be aware of any NPB's
they have issued to buyer and should always check before the billing cycle ends
so they are not charged for items they never sold.

If there's any issue please email us at Help Desk and we can resolve the
matter quickly.

Thank you

Cheyne
BrickLink Customer Support

I was surprised when this option was added. You sure this is not going to turn
potential new buyers away from Bricklink? From what I saw less than 20% of sellers
even use IC. That would be a potential reduction of 80% of shops. How valid is
"Welcome to the world's largest LEGO marketplace!" to the people you are
trying to attract, if it's reduced by 80%?

Also, I think almost all of my (0) buyers have been great (it's the (-1)
ones I watch out for

). I have never noticed a correlation between (0)'s
and non payments, neither have I noticed a correlation between instant checkout
and NPB's. Maybe that's not true for all shops, but just saying that
for my shop's reality the feature isn't sensical. Wonder if it's
really worth the downgrade towards new users.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 18, 2018 03:01

Subject:

Re: Negative feedback on orders that are "purged"

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, If_you_build_it writes:

Why do negative and neutral feedback still show for orders that were supposedly
purged from the system? I have one case where the order was shipped, actually
lost in the mail, neutral feedback received, then received a few days later.
I was able to respond to the feedback but it didn't occur to me in time
to ask to have the feedback removed. Now that I've tried to make the request
the system won't let me because the order was supposedly purged but yet the
feedback is still there. Do negative or neutral feedback ever expire? Is there
any way for me to request removal of this feedback seeing as how the system apparently
can't access the order?

I get your point about negative feedback perhaps having an influence for too
long, but I am surprised you expected negative to disappear and positive to stay.
That's distorting the past. As crazylegoman pointed out, your negative feedback
will probably exist longer than you

A suggestion to make very old feedback
less prominent or influential could be good, but not this way.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Apr 10, 2018 20:31

Subject:

Re: Could we have different kinds of invoices?

Viewed:

52 times

Topic: