Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | LordSkylark  | | Posted: | Aug 16, 2021 10:40 | | Subject: | Re: Part 3702 in trans neon green | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, Brickych writes:
| | I have this part
in trans neon green.
Lego logo on the studs.
Where did it come from? Not in the catalog.
|
Probably a prototype color.
If it's not a hassle, please consider photographing it and adding it to the
bricklink catalog for future verification reference that it does exist in that
color.
|
 |
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2021 00:53 | | Subject: | Re: Castle In The Forest | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Designer Program | |
|
| In LEGO, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In LEGO, SylvainLS writes:
| | In LEGO, peregrinator writes:
| | […]
There is a lot of room between the length of time it took for the BL AFOL sets
to sell out and the 40 minutes it took the Castle in the Forest to sell out yesterday.
Yes, the variables were different, but ... 40 minutes? I can't imagine that
was expected.
|
Indeed not. They apparently only expected double the ADP backers / half the
Ideas clickers.
The 3,000 minimum is understandable. And I guess they have lots of reasons for
setting a max (parts availability, with other sets to produce, relatively short
time to produce / manage supply, etc.).
Still, if the biggest toy seller in the world can’t predict anything, repeatedly….
If you add the no-more-exclusives fiasco (
AFOLs: Stop making exclusives! We all want to buy everything!
TLG: Okay, we hear you! No more regional exclusives, pinky swear! … BTW, here
are new sets exclusive to East Asia, and here’s another one for the SDCC, and,
and, and…. )
and other very limited limited editions, it’s like TLG only wants to sell (expensive)
collectibles, not toys, and only to scalpers.
|
Pure speculation here, but I think the artificial scarcity motivates people to
buy that might not otherwise. I can always put off buying a regular LEGO set
knowing that it will probably be available for a few years, but the same is not
true of a designer program set. Of course, LEGO could probably sell more than
5,000 of each if they made them regular sets, but it would probably take more
than a day.
|
Maybe I don't understand what's going on (and there's probably not
a sure way to do so)... But, if I were a company, I would think the best method
would be to make the max unlimited and then close the number AFTER the 30 days
(or whatever) time expired. I would want to maximize my profits. In fact, the
more sets that are produced at any factory at one time, the less the cost for
each set it. Because the biggest time/cost factor is setting up the production
run itself for the first time.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2021 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: Parting out 71741 Ninjago City Gardens | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, Papabricks writes:
| | Hello Bricklinkers,
After adding all my remarks and try to part out ninjago city gardens, it failed😞
I’ve noticed that you are meant to part this set in two halves.
Below is the additional note.
Additional Notes: Collapse ▲
Due to the massive number of lines (1000+) in the inventory of this set, the
BrickLink system will time out during the part out process. You must part out
the set in two different halves.
It would be much appreciated if someone is kind enough to let me know how you
do that please.
*do you just delete half of the lots?
Thank you.
Papabricks
|
Is it really that hard to fix this site error?
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2021 02:42 | | Subject: | Re: Part Identification (Episode 2) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, BricksterXD writes:
| | Hello there!
I need some more help identifying some parts in my inventory. I'm aware that
they're from either Bionicle / Hero Factory / Knights Kingdom - other than
that, I'm unable to identify them.
Any and all help appreciated.
Thank you!
|
Are you aware that most of those parts have a part number already engraved into
them? Simply type the part number in the search bar and the entry for it in the
catelog on bricklink will come up.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2021 15:08 | | Subject: | Re: Modifying feedback? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, YYCFigsNBricks writes:
| | Hi everyone,
We had a buyer leave us great and positive written feedback, but accidentally
chose "neutral" instead of "positive" feedback as the radio button. They are
a first time buyer. Any way to modify this to be a positive?
We contacted the seller and they confirmed it was an accident, but this affects
the store and would like it changed.
Thanks!
|
In the past, I sent a message to the help desk and they were able to do something
about it.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 28, 2021 01:05 | | Subject: | Re: Brick, Round Corner 2 x 2 Macaroni with Stud | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bigasbricks writes:
| | Brick, Round Corner 2 x 2 Macaroni with Stud Notch and Reinforced Underside
Got this today in Trans Red can't find it anywhere under known colors for
this part.
|
If you have the time, please take a moment to submit a photo of the real part
to the database, so we have record that an authentic one is actually out in the
wild.
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 26, 2021 18:18 | | Subject: | Item removal request error | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
|
| When I click on the "Submit request" button on this screen (only grayed out because
I hit back after the error), I get an error message and cannot proceed.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2021 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Monochrome Minifigures | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:
| | | |
'm pretty sure the main objective behind the catalog is
that it is a representation of the parts that are officially sold by Lego. While
they do sell parts to make monochrome minifigures, they are not sold as such,
hence why they are not listed in the standard catalog and require custom listings.
If they were to do this, it could open a can of worms for other requests.
|
Disagree - the main objective of the catalog is to facilitate selling and buying
LEGO in this marketplace. If there is significant demand it should be added to
the catalog to make it easier to buy and sell (and to track the price history).
I trust the catalog admins to make a judgement call whether something is worthy
or not, but can understand that they wouldn't want that responsibility and
the flood of requests/complaints.
|
I agree. This should be done with certain types of parts after proper discernment.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2021 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Monochrome Minifigures | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, psusaxman2000 writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
This exists because it was sold this way. Same for the others that are mentioned
below that have appeared in sets as figs built that way. I get the idea of having
all different monochrome color figs available, but then where do you limit the
creation of them. Does it mean, you could only have figs if all the parts are
available to create it. If someone "cleans" a part to remove the print and create
a new monochrome, they technically have the part, but it's not original by
any means. The current catalog doesn't limit anyone from buying or creating
them, but I could see the gap if someone is looking to purchase one. It's
a balance that I'm glad I don't have to manage.
|
They can also "clean" a part and list it as the plain torso, that is nothing
new. I'd hope anyone doing that would list them as used or at least indicate
the parts had been wiped.
They can also create a monochrome torso assembly by pulling off (yellow) hands
from another one such as this
and adding the correct colour hands. So the torso assembly might not be original
but still exists if created. More of a worry are monochrome legs/hips, as people
can pull off the legs and damage the pins, but again that is not a new problem.
|
As long as they are sold as used it doesn't matter. And if after wipe it's
100% indistinguishable from a non-wiped used torso... well... it really doesn't
matter.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2021 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Adjusting Colour Names such as Bluish Grey? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Can we use both Lego and bricklink color names simultaneously, or the user can
choose an option which to use?
In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | I hope others will share the same logic in what I’m trying to suggest or perhaps
I’m barking up the wrong tree? Thoughts?
|
We have considered harmonization of colors in the past, and we continue to do
so. But one thing I will mention is that the word "OLD" is likely not a term
we will include in Item Names or Color Names.
On BrickLink, the color and item name are often concatenated, meaning they are
stuck together for use as a single term. The official color numbers of Modulex
were removed from the color name for this very reason, to keep people from getting
confused.
And speaking of numbers, I'm thinking the first step in harmonization would
be to replace the BrickLink color numbers with official LEGO numbers. What do
people think of THAT idea. When we speak to internal folks, they tend to use
the numbers instead of the names, so there is value in those numbers.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2021 16:21 | | Subject: | Re: Have all printed Legs been deleted? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
If printed ones are removed, why are plain ones not being removed?
Surely these suffer the same problems as printed ones when taken apart.
|
Yep, that is a good one if not a really good one!
I agree with you.
I see a lot of chewed on legs, plain and decorated, it should be nice if you
can replace them for a lower price than a complete assembly.
In fact, there is no reason at all why arms and hands can be sold apart while
decorated legs cannot be sold separately.
And if someone makes up a reason it would be valid for the legs too.
|
Well, I hope that they don't delete the non-printed versions, because when
I get large lots of used pieces, I end up with lots of misc. legs.
But I definitely would rather have all printed legs added to the catelog.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2020 02:38 | | Subject: | Re: USPS struggles & NSS | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, rob.ulm writes:
| | In Suggestions, Ctbyrne writes:
| | I'm sure I'm not alone in getting hit with plenty of NSS claims because
USPS is taking too long to deliver packages. Once the mail carrier takes the
package, there's nothing I can do about how long they take to deliver it
to the buyer. I know that buyers need their protection too, but too many stores
are going to be shut down because of the impatience of buyers. Maybe during these
trying times for USPS, the ability to file NSS be pushed back a certain amount
of time? As far as I know now, you can file it immediately after placing the
order. Maybe something like 2 weeks after the order is placed before you can
file an NSS. I would think that most if not all sellers would have long since
shipped the package out within 2 weeks. The lag time on my store is about 4 days,
but never have I taken 2 weeks to ship out a package.
Chris
Bricks on the Dollar
|
Speaking as a *patient* buyer, I'm interested in hearing from sellers if
there's actually anything you're able to do in terms of dealing with
USPS/trying to track down packages. I'm waiting on an order for three weeks
now with tracking indicating that it's been hung up at the last "stop" for
two weeks.
I have no intention of claiming NSS - the seller obviously shipped it and this
is 100% on the post office - I'm just wondering if it's even worth bothering
the seller or if there's no value in even doing that. I'm legitimately
interested in the seller perspective on this.
In September/October I had a package straight up lost (package was never scanned
and never arrived, seller refunded) and another than took six weeks to arrive.
I took a break for a little bit but came back because I had an expiring coupon
to use. I would never blame a seller for stuff out of their control but the unfortunate
consequence is I've just stopped buying from anyone (not just Bricklink,
other small businesses as well). Also, I had toyed with the idea of starting
to sell some of my spare parts, but that's on the shelf until the post office
can sort itself out.
|
After 7 days of the order entering the system, the seller is able to file a "Missing
Mail" request search online with the post office. I personally do this after
the item has not had any tracking updates for 7 days. I'm not sure if this
actually helps or not, but usually within a day or two of filing the item is
back moving again.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Sep 15, 2020 18:51 | | Subject: | Re: Tap category? | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | Could Stormchaser verify what's going on here?
|
I believe Randy answered the questions you had.
The Tap category may be removed at some point in the future, but for now it will
remain. All changes shown right now on this page will absolutely occur on October
1st:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
Judging by some of the items getting moved into Scala and Belville categories...
Are we going to be moving more items into those categories then? I was definitely
hoping those theme-type categories would be eliminated and the parts divided
out amongst actual part type categories.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2020 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Make neutral feedback actually NEUTRAL | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, randyf writes:
| | In Suggestions, CanadaFirst writes:
| | We all know that currently the way feedback works is kinda borked. The feedback
percentage counts Positive vs other feedbacks and so it causes a neutral feedback
to lower that score. Neutral feedback should simply not be a part of the equation.
It should be positive vs megative and completely disregard neutral feedback so
that neutral feedback is actually neutral and not 'negative light'.
New users do not understand that leaving a neutral feedback hurts the shop's
feedback percentage and to be honest, it's completely understandable because
neutral should be neutral, it should not have any incidence on a shop's feedback
percentage.
|
Using this suggestion...
First store:
1000 positive feedback + 100 neutral feedback + 0 negative feedback = 100% score
Second store:
200 positive feedback + 0 neutral feedback + 1 negative feedback = 99.5% score
Which one is the better store?
|
In my opinion, the answer to this and lots of similar ones is "Stop obsessing
so much about your percentage and score". I don't think most customers even
pay attention to it. And the ones that do aren't going to see a 97% and
run away. If it seems low to them, they'll want to see what the complaints
were and if it was just someone saying they had a ho-hum experience in your store
it isn't going to matter.
If something needs to be done about the percentage calculation, perhaps just
getting rid of the percentage calculation is the answer.
|
The percentage is a warning against high feedback stores that have lots of neutrals
or negs. Although only if people use it to prompt them to look at the feedback.
|
What if we just changed the Feedback "score" to tell the whole truth concisely?
axaday(4777 2 0) with the numbers in color.
|
Much better. That way it would be very easy to spot without having to click on
every user's/store's number.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2020 12:49 | | Subject: | Re: Tweezers in gold color? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Modulex | |
|
| In Modulex, minibricks writes:
| | I have a large Modulex collection and have several of the silver colored item
that you are calling "tweezer" -- it is indeed a Modulex item and it is used
to remove tiles/bricks from a baseplate. I have not seen the brass colored one
though!
Karyn
In Modulex, patpendlego writes:
| | Hi,
found these in a large lot of Modulex, the left one metallic and same as the
images here on bricklink, the right one is gold color and different... is it
Modulex?
Arnoud
|
|
Is it in the catalog?
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2020 22:55 | | Subject: | Re: Moving Things - Responses | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I agree with keeping the bracket category, this is definitely a unique category
and needs to be retained.
In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Bracket - category poorly defined (suggested solution is to rewrite definition)
Response: Like Antenna, here I would support eliminating the category
altogether. There are only 24 parts within and all of them would probably fit
better in other categories.
|
Bit of a late response, but I would like to add here that "only 24 parts" isn't
the whole story - Bracket is not exactly like other small categories. In actual
inventory volume, this category accounts for approximately as many parts as "Brick,
Arch" or "Brick, Round", and the buying frequency is also comparable. So I just
wanted to add here that while the number of entries is low, it is not entirely
the same as other small categories.
That fact (together with the fact that elimination would probably result in even
more Plate,Modifieds) leads me to prefer keeping it. Possibly moving brackets
without angled studs somewhere else, like Vehicle Base or Cockpit.
Just wanted to add this but I leave the decision up to you guys.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2020 22:45 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | This flame had me confused for a while yesterday, as I couldn't find it with
the other flaming parts in energy effect ...
[P=16768pb001]
|
I always store this with my minifigure weapons...
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2020 22:41 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Is there any other good category for this? I wouldn't personally have thought
this would be a utensil...
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2020 21:59 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Combine categories like "large figure", "bionicle", "hero factory" into one,
and then divide them up into different sub-categories, like "torso", "mask",
etc.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, I won't promise anything will happen.
But this is the plan:
1. I'm opening discussion right now, in this thread, on changes in
item type and and category for any items wrongly categorized. I expect discussion
will probably focus on parts and last around two weeks.
2. I'll post all changes deemed worth making on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
3. The catalog team will discuss internally during the month of September.
This will give everyone time to prepare for item movements. I'll post public
updates/reminders occasionally during August and September.
4. The actual changes will be made on October 1st, 2020. A record of
the changes will be retained for reference purposes for two years on the page
linked to above.
I know some of you are excited about this. It's the first time BrickLink
has been widely open to correcting some longstanding categorization issues.
I'm excited, too. I will fully read and carefully consider every post made
in this thread. To help me out, please:
1. Snip replies (remove extraneous content before replying).
2. Stay on point (don't post digressions).
3. Keep everything in this one thread.
4. Don't expect miracles. Some ideas may have to be added to the
roadmap as separate projects.
5. Try to limit complaints. Or, if you believe everything is already
properly categorized and don't like change, complain loudly and often. Site
management will be watching.
Thanks to everyone for the input you're about to provide. I don't know
how this will go, but I expect it to be interesting. 
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jul 23, 2020 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: POLL: New Variant for 6641 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | There is a new variant for
that was just released that has a completely new type of axle hole.
It has Design ID 51149: https://brickset.com/parts/design-51149
The catalog team is considering whether to add this as a new part to the catalog
or just add an alternate item number to 6641.
POLL:
What would you like to see done?
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Cheers,
Randy
|
Can we work on getting some designated A/B entries for some of the parts that
haven't had any for years (or have one variant designated but not the other)
of which there are actually functional differences?
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 05:41 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
The only problem is, because that is just barely over, a majority of people will
have the 1x2 plate with with the sticker in a lot rather than the entire assembly...
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 6, 2020 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Dual molded arms | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
I've always thought it should be reversed, as most arms base would be either
yellow or flesh, therefore limiting the amount of catelog entries drastically.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 17, 2020 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
"x" exists as a temporary number when the official Lego part number was originally
not known (usually because it is not printed on the part itself).
When I've discovered the true part number, I've submitted many for the
"x" number to be replaced by the official Lego part number, and it's always
been done. (The "x" number was not even retained as an alternate.) In fact, one
time I went through the catelog to discover and replace as many as I could find
the original part number for.
For some reason here though... When the original part number was discovered,
it was added as an alternate number, but not replaced. So, there's obviously
serious inconsistency here.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2020 23:48 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, edeevo writes:
| | […]
I'm guessing it also has to do with all the dependencies within the site
that would be affected if the numbers were simply changed... […]
|
Nah, items have a fixed, internal ID in the database, that ID doesn’t change.
The part ID is just another description, shorter and unique.
Think about when they add a digit to the numbered minifigs (bla001 becoming bla0001).
|
Right. These "x" numbers are changed all the time when the actual number becomes
known. I'm surprised it wasn't done here.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2020 23:09 | | Subject: | Re: Question about part x168 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?
Should it be renamed?
|
It has been renamed.
|
Is there a reason that the "x" number is still the primary number when the actual
part number is now known?
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 10, 2020 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Feb 17, 2020 03:00 | | Subject: | Re: Disassembling Bionicle | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Thanks in advance for assistance. And then probably after, too.
|
Thank you all for your input. I genuinely appreciate it. The responses were
more than I expected in both quantity and quality. You've all been extremely
helpful.
* | | 32553c01 (Inv) Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Green Eye / Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Parts: BIONICLE |
|
Thank you very much! Even with a custom made tool, my hands hurt after removing
them... especially when I used to get them in sometimes by the dozens at a time...
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2019 03:22 | | Subject: | Re: Cardboard sleeves in inventories | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, tEoS writes:
| | I like the idea of adding and inventorying these boxes (especially the ones w/o
a peek hole), though I wish it could have been done years ago. Still, as they
say, better late than never.
| | Wow, people will throw an instant tirade about any new idea we try out. It is
no wonder that the corporate BrickLink employees and developers don't want
to try anything new, either. Everything that is tried receives just whinging
and moaning from the user base. I think I now have a good idea about what drove
Jaclyn away from the site.
In any case, we have heard all of the feedback and will be reversing course on
the inventories. We had planned to make an announcement in a few days concerning
this to ask for feedback on what had been done, but we wanted stuff in place
for users to look at. So this thread was not a complete loss to us, but you did
jump the gun on us, Jonas.
Please bear with us as we work out the kinks.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
I've glad that they not have catalog entries of their own.
The only way it will work in actually set inventories, is if there is a way to
part down parts in sets easily. If so, I think it would be good.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2019 13:05 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, alphadavy writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
It is a shame that the site cannot do something and step in and help sellers
and buyers here, by realising what they need. Some people want to sell and buy
complete series. I thought the primary goal of bricklink was to enable sales
of LEGO, so adding a "complete series" for each CMF or similar series would work
well for those people. Does it really matter that they were never sold that way
by LEGO? If need be, this information could always be added as a note to a complete
series entry.
|
+1
It's about time!
|
Here you go. Let's try it out.
Let me know if you think the random one needs a big question mark placed over
it. If people like this entry and use it, we'll go ahead and add the others.
|
Isn't there a better way to reword these types of entries?
"Complete Random Set of 1 Minifigure"
This wording still seems confusing. Even if "Complete Set of 1 Random Minifigure"
it would make more sense. But I would think using "complete" makes it confusing
for the most part.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 00:36 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I have been searching for an image of this set for years:
The set has no date of addition, so it must have been added to the site not too
terribly long after BrickLink was founded. At times I have wondered if the set
was even real, but the specificity of its name always made me think that it must
have existed.
Today I got this catalog in the mail which was not in the BrickLink database
and which I just now added:
In that catalog I finally found the long-missing image and added it. I'm
pretty confident that this is the only website anywhere that you can see an image
of set 9978-1. I'm pretty excited that my long search has finally ended
in satisfaction and wanted to share.
We are now down to only 29 sets without any image (and one of them is from 2018,
so it doesn't really count). If you'd like to see what we're missing,
click here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=S&imgID=0&itemBrand=1000
|
Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
I know you are working within the "no new development" constraints, but if you
could get a few minutes of dev time, this could be better solved with a dynamic
append to the display name based on the "appears in" reference. So the set
number(s) is never in the actual description text. This solves the issues of
maintaining changes if the same figure already in the database is reused later,
or some correction to the association is made.
Minifigure Name [In Set 1000-1]
Minifigure Name [In Multiple Sets]
A user option could be enabled for "Show Minifigure Set References". Search
results could add another tab that shows "Results Contain Figures", so searching
"Set 1000" would show me that set, and all of the contents of that set.
You could actually take this a step further and enable the dynamic append for
all objects -- animals, parts assemblies, the proposed sub-sets function,
etc. This would be extremely useful for printed torsos, decorated tiles, and
other generally unique parts.
-Jason
|
I think this is one of the better suggestions on this topic.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 23:10 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
If it were my own database and I was doing it for myself, I do not think I would
include set numbers in the title. However, if it does help people out, I cannot
think of any harm that it would do to have the extra information and it might
help some people find a figure better in certain cases. I was also thinking,
when there are, say, 50 differet Luke Skywalker figures (I didn't actually
do any sort of count, so I don't know the actual number) how is someone to
know the difference between 5 different Luke Hoths without the set numbering
helping with the identification. It would seem in those cases that that would
really help distinguish the entries better. So, because it seems that it would
help others, I would for making that consistence, as long as the figure probably
appears in 3 or less sets.
Andrew
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2018 01:38 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| |
Brown
Why was this deleted? The brown appears in two sets.
|
It was deleted because I wasn't paying enough attention. I've double
checked every single image before I deleted it, but this one slipped by me.
|
Which is strangely good that I checked it, because it's one of the only ones
I checked.
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 21:59 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
Why was this deleted? The brown appears in two sets.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | A new catalog project has begun:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
As you can see, the (Other) project is now complete and LordSkylark's project
is temporarily on hold.
The fifth catalog project is to remove images which are renders and which show
parts which do not exist in the colors shown. There are estimated to be 1,600
of these renders left in the catalog and there is no easy way for me to locate
them.
I would imagine the majority of them are for basic, undecorated parts. Please
post here with micro tags for the parts which need rendered images removed and
specify the colors. I will review the findings and remove the renders where
appropriate. Please note that this project will not be removing any actual
photos of parts.
Thank you all for your assistance.
|
So basically at this stage, if a part does not appear in an actual set, then
bricklink wants an actual physical photo to verify that it does in fact exist?
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.
|
Here's some images.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:43 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
|
I will restate that this needs to be done.
Most people probably do not deal much with friends parts.
These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
The one type of legs are printed.
The other type of legs are dual-molded.
The printed legs look much worse than the dual-molded ones.
This seems more serious to me than some of the other entries with multiple variants.
Andrew
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog: Strongly disagree 3830c0 deletion | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, dearlydeparted writes:
| | I think this is a bad call, that complete assembly is necessary, but just my
2 cents, others may disagree. And absolutely not looking forward to wasting
the time to "undo" and reenter years worth of inventory.
"Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel - Complete Assembly - (MARKED FOR DELETION)
Item No: 3830c01
This item was marked for deletion because it sets a precedent for adding dozens
of unnecessary combinations of hinges as assemblies to the catalog."
|
I understand the reason for the deletion of this part. But since it has been
in the catalog for a very very long time, and many people do use this listing,
I would be in favor in keeping in around for the sake of others, even though
I myself do not use it.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 10:54 | | Subject: | Key chain inventorying? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Inventories | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I think I forgot about posting this in my previous list...
What about inventorying key chains and magnets that normally do not come apart?
There are some rare parts that are ONLY included in these and it would be good
to know how to get certain parts.
Andrew
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 7, 2018 21:32 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'd say go with a Skeleton & Ghost category, but retain the numbering system
with "Gen" (at least for now). Because many of these span multiple series, I
cannot see a better way to do it.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 3, 2018 00:21 | | Subject: | Re: Quattro Leg? | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | Hi
I saw this on Amazon Prime, and I was instantly curious as to what the name really
means
Why is this packaged as a McDonalds set, and it has nothing to do with Quattro?
Maybe this is an item that needs to be 'sorted out'?
Regards,
Paul
|
I wonder if "Quattro" by chance has the same name as the theme.
Either way - the offical set name given by Lego's Part's and Replacement
site is "Greedy"
Is the "Quattro" name on the bag or listed anywhere else? If not, we should change
it to the official name, I would think.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 2, 2018 02:31 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project Request "Bar" vs. "Weapon" | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
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?)
|
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.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 1, 2018 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
| | Spike - move to Minifigure, Utensil
|
I would move this into the same category as all of the other barbs/claws/horns
for consistency.
|
I second this. That is the box I have mine in for inventory.
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 23:09 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
I also feel that the monikers 'North American Version' and 'International
Version' in sticker names should be replaced with the sticker code located
in one of the corners of the sticker sheet since these stickers do not appear
to have a discernible pattern of distribution at all times.
|
This is very true. I have had both variants in North America sets for various
sets.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 19:41 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | 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:
Beehive - move to Cone
|
I think 'Animal - Air' might be better for this, but that's just
a thought.
|
Or Minifigure, Utensil
| | | | Spiral Pole - move to Hose
|
My first thought on this was that it should go to Axle, but Hose is probably
a better fit.
| | Waves - create new category titled Wave
|
This one has me conflicted. There's a number of these Wave items that should
be in 'Minfig - Utensil' but others should not. Is it better to keep
them all together in a new category, or split them based on common usage?
Josh
|
|
Beehive might be good for Minifigure, Utsensil... or perhaps food(?). It's
also used as cotton candy I think.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | 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):
Two babies - move to minifigures
Ball - create new category titled Ball
Beehive - move to Cone
Han Solo in Carbonite - move to Minifigure
BrickHeadz glasses - move to Bar
Chains - create new category titled Chain
Chest armor - move to Large Figure Part
Finials - move to new Ball category
Hand, Mechanical - move to Large Figure Part
Human Tools - create new category titled Accessory, Human Tool
Infinity Stones - move to Minifigure, Utensil
Light Cover - move to Cone
Obscure Item - leave in other
Slides - create new category titled Slide
Power Bursts - move to Minifigure, Utensil
Rings - create new category titled Ring
Rip Cords - move to new Accessory, Human Tool category
Rope Bridge - move to Stairs
Rotor, Spinjitzu - move to Propeller
Shaft Clip - move to new Accessory, Human Tool category
Skull - move to Rock
Spike - move to Minifigure, Utensil
Spiral Pole - move to Hose
Spring - create new category titled Spring (some of these in Technic which could
be moved)
Spring Shooter - move to Brick, Modified
Star Wars Multipack - move to Minifigure, Utensil
Tassel - move to Minifigure, Utensil
Waves - create new category titled Wave
Wing / Sail Holder - move to new Accessory, Human Tool category
Wing - move to Wing
Zipline - move to new Accessory, Human Tool category
Okay, that's all the parts. Let's discuss it.
|
Obscure item is technically an electric wire part. You could move it there.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 00:59 | | Subject: | Re: Another New Catalog Thing | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Here is another I came across that I'm not sure exactly what the state is...
Should 53989 be renamed "thin support"? These even have entirely different catalog
numbers. It would make it definite that it's not an undetermined (as I do
not think the intention is).
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 00:55 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Found another one in the notes on my desk! 
I would like to see a part category created called "Cardboard Sleeve". This category
would include any cardboard sleeves that originally come in sets. Why is this
important?
(1) These cardboard sleeves could be numbered according to the number on the
cardboard sleeve so that they are searchable.
(2) These cardboard sleeves could then be added to set inventories as they originally
came packaged.
(3) These cardboard sleeves could then be inventoried so they would not need
to be opened to know what is in them.
(4) Additional notes on catalog entries could be completely removed and cleaned
up (such as the ones on part 522).
(5) People would have no reason to keep trying to add the codes on the cardboard
sleeves as PCCs to catalog entries (such as the ones on part 522).
Cheers,
Randy
|
A great idea!
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 14:27 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Thank you for mentioning this. I have added it to the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
One of the things that contributes to part category confusion is not having specific
written definitions of individual part categories and what should be contained
therein.
|
Speaking of this, do you think that 6934a and 6934b could be in the same category?
(Preferrably tiles rather than Scala).
Andrew
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Michigan
)
)
)
)
