Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Mar 22, 2024 22:00 | | Subject: | Re: Seller Verification | | Viewed: | 175 times | | Topic: | General | |
| In General, par016 writes:
| | I didn't have to do any verification like that. Honestly without knowing
exactly what you are describing, it sounds a bit like further phishing. My verification
was only in an email from Russell. As for response time, unfortunately, I was
hacked at 1030PM and had to fend off the hacker for 7 hours while I waited for
an admin to wake up lol
|
FYI I think we've got Rick's situation sorted out.
Our admin staff does not have access to the communcations with various members
over the years, so they cannot act as quickly or with as much confidence. Because
of the sensitivity of the situation, they follow a strict protocol that puts
security above everything else.
|
 |
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2024 15:58 | | Subject: | Re: WARNING! Login from new device phishing emai | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
| In Problem, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | In Problem, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Problem, randyf writes:
| | In Problem, chetzler writes:
| | I don’t know why BrickLink has suddenly become such a juicy target.
|
All of it started fairly shortly after all of the extremely unpopular part merges
started to actually occur. I have a strong feeling that a user here that was
very upset about the decisions made is having some "fun" at BrickLink's
expense.
|
Interesting theory. But the scammers that caused the November 3 incident are
the same ones that caused the problems last night, and the variant merge project
was not exposed to the public before January 2024.
As much as companies tend not to boast about the number of online attacks they
receive, we do see a remarkable increase in scammer activity across the board
- throughout many companies and across different industries. To us, it does not
feel like BrickLink is being singled out.
|
Does there happen to be a plan in the works to stop this activity?
|
Yes. In fact, most of what is being done to prevent this type of fraud is being
done behind the scenes, and BrickLink members are not aware that it is happening.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2024 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: WARNING! Login from new device phishing emai | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
| In Problem, randyf writes:
| | In Problem, chetzler writes:
| | I don’t know why BrickLink has suddenly become such a juicy target.
|
All of it started fairly shortly after all of the extremely unpopular part merges
started to actually occur. I have a strong feeling that a user here that was
very upset about the decisions made is having some "fun" at BrickLink's
expense.
|
Interesting theory. But the scammers that caused the November 3 incident are
the same ones that caused the problems last night, and the variant merge project
was not exposed to the public before January 2024.
As much as companies tend not to boast about the number of online attacks they
receive, we do see a remarkable increase in scammer activity across the board
- throughout many companies and across different industries. To us, it does not
feel like BrickLink is being singled out.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2024 04:53 | | Subject: | Re: HELP HACKED (Some new info) | | Viewed: | 110 times | | Topic: | General | |
| In General, par016 writes:
| | In General, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In General, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In General, Chickaroo writes:
| | In General, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In General, Chickaroo writes:
| | In General, kittybrickz writes:
| | I'm heading to bed, best wishes to a speedy resolution.
Goodnight and sweet dreams of paid orders, positive feedbacks and pizza, to everyone
who isn't a HACKER 
|
Night!
I’ve got the coffee on for anyone who is still up
Roo 
|
Do you have tea? I’m still up for about an hour and a little
|
I think you need the one on the right Nubs!
Roo
|
|
Well I’m off for a short bit. Hopefully your are able to get it resolved soon!
|
Thanks for the company! He's been quiet for a while now. Probably hoping
to lul me into complacency, but I'm still refreshing constantly. The next
admin shift can't come soon enough
|
I have taken control of your account and sent you a message using an old email.
If you don't get my message, contact me at admin@bricklink.com
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2024 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: Need "Item For Sale Condition" Clarification | | Viewed: | 113 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
| In Selling, aaronaar writes:
| | In Selling, aaronaar writes:
| | Hi!
I didn't get a response from the help desk, so I'm asking here.
I noticed that I can part together some official sets using 100% new parts. Am
I allowed to list those sets as "new incomplete" if I mention in the
comments that I parted together the set myself using new parts and am missing
box/instructions/stickers? Or are you only allowed to list a set as "new
incomplete" if you only took items out of a NISB set?
If you are not allowed to list it as "new incomplete", could you list
it as "used incomplete" and say in the comments that you parted it together
using new parts and am missing box/instructions/stickers?
Given that:
"Custom sets or instructions may be listed, provided they do not infringe
on any intellectual property rights, including those of the LEGO Group."
I do not believe I could list it as a custom set instead?
Thanks for information and if possible would like clarification from an admin.
|
Upon further investigation I have found at least one lot
https://store.bricklink.com/SortStation?itemID=336122737#/shop?o={%22invID%22:%22336122737%22}
where this exact scenario is listed as “new incomplete” and it has been listed
for over a year.
Wether this is due to it being allowed or simply never noticed is up for debate.
|
The big question here is whether that tile is original. There have been a few
fakes sold on BrickLink over the years before we caught them, so maybe it's
one of those.
In general, we do frown on used sets that have been BrickLinked, especially some
of the highly collectible ones like this:
But we don't proactively remove them. If they get reported, they will get
taken down though.
If someone wants to sell a collection of parts that may or may constitute a complete
set, they can always list it as a custom lot.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2024 10:44 | | Subject: | Re: Selling Removed Stickers | | Viewed: | 114 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
| In Selling, zorbanj writes:
| | In Selling, brickerking writes:
| |
So just to follow up on this one...
I asked the help desk:
Can I list an incomplete set of peeled off stickers stored on wax paper as a
used sticker sheet with notes and a photo?
They got back to me and said it would need to be listed as a custom item.
So then I reported a couple other stickers listed in the above condition and
they were all removed from the store within a couple days.
|
The help language was changed:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=102
It now reads (second sentence is new):
"Sticker sheets missing stickers must be listed as used. Individual stickers
not attached to the original sticker sheet must be listed as Custom Items."
|
Yes, as a result of the complaints against these sticker listings, we have decided
to address the issue in the listing rules.
The main problem with individual stickers separated from the sheet is that we
don't have catalog entries for them. It is simply a practical concession
that we allow sheets with missing stickers to be sold as used, since for the
most part, used complete stickers sheets are very uncommon and of questionable
market value.
In the listings that were pulled down, the used stickers were placed on felt
and this is not great, with the fibers from the felt getting stuck to the back
of the sticker. Wax paper (freezer paper) is better since this is similar to
the surface the stickers were originally stuck to.
However, I do believe there is a valid market for used stickers for vintage sets,
especially some of the plastic based stickers (e.g. Fabuland). So I will be consulting
with our Marketplace and Catalog teams to see if we can make a provision for
listing them in some way under the sticker entry and not as custom items.
Until we make a decision on this, we won't be removing any more used sticker
listings.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2024 21:25 | | Subject: | Re: Address change that I didn't make? | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
| In Problem, jasonpenn writes:
| | First screenshot is my actual address 3120 Cuervo on the Feb 11th order and the
Second is a combination of my old address 12817 Roma and my new address 3120
Cuervo on the March 4th order. I didn't make the change in between. I think
an admin needs to look into this because there was no date on the log of changing
my address in between
Jason
|
Your store address is still listed as the old one, btw.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2024 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: One time pin random generation | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | General | |
| In General, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | In General, brickerking writes:
| | In General, Ianpugh writes:
| | Is anyone else getting random one time pin notifications? I’ve had about 6 sent
at times when i have not tried to log in to my account so far……. Not sure if
this is happening to everyone or just me?
|
They just turned that on for everyone without warning: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1459423
|
Yep, went to check my store settings and it was on. 
|
You can turn it off if you wish.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2024 17:40 | | Subject: | Expanded feature for power users | | Viewed: | 171 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hi everyone,
One of the side effects of the variant merge project is that some of our more
advanced users began asking for Alternate Item IDs to be included in the catalog
download feature.
So we have added this field to the download - see attached images. Downloads
(as before) are available in either CSV or XML format.
By way of reminder, for the variant project we are adding all original item numbers
as alternates to make sure people are able to easily find parts where the number
has changed.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 13, 2024 13:22 | | Subject: | Re: Is this a legit email? | | Viewed: | 110 times | | Topic: | Help | |
| In Help, adam.r writes:
| | I have received an email asking me to sign up to be a BrickLink Research Member.
Whilst I have no problem with being BrickLink's guinea pig however given
the recent warnings about phishing emails targeting BrickLink users, I figured
that it would be best to check if this is a legitimate email before signing up.
The Sign up! link goes to an Office 365 form that asks questions including Name,
Email address and BrickLink username.
Could someone from BrickLink please advise if BrickLink has indeed been sending
out such emails, or is someone else up to no good?
|
This is a legitimate email from our BrickLink team. Please sign up if you are
interested.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2024 13:34 | | Subject: | Re: Add links not working | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Help | |
| In Help, randyf writes:
| | In Help, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Help, Turez writes:
| | In Help, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | I’m trying to add a link for Jangbricks channel for reference, but I tried to
add a link before and it didn’t go through.
Is there something I need to fill out for the link I don’t know about?
|
There is an issue with the image upload. Try adding the link without an image.
|
The image upload was just fixed last week.
|
So, it only took five months for the fix. That is pretty fast for BrickLink speeds.
|
Actually, the links image issue was reported in June of 2021. Definitely one
of the longer fixes.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2024 13:19 | | Subject: | Re: Add links not working | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Help | |
| In Help, Turez writes:
| | In Help, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | I’m trying to add a link for Jangbricks channel for reference, but I tried to
add a link before and it didn’t go through.
Is there something I need to fill out for the link I don’t know about?
|
There is an issue with the image upload. Try adding the link without an image.
|
The image upload was just fixed last week.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2024 12:05 | | Subject: | Re: Phishing email UPDATE March 5 | | Viewed: | 272 times | | Topic: | Administrative | |
| Hello again everyone,
Our security team was able to get the original bricklinks.net site taken
down, but we got reports this morning of a new bricklinks.org site and
evidence that phishing emails have been sent to our users, directing people to
this new site. The new site is much more realistic (see image below).
Please log in ONLY to bricklink.com and be aware that an effort is being
made to steal your BrickLink credentials. We will keep you updated if this problem
persists.
The BrickLink Team
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 4, 2024 11:01 | | Subject: | Re: Variant merge - clarification 553b/c | | Viewed: | 114 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Hello,
[p=553b]
I see that the old 553b Blocked Stud has been merged with the much newer 3626
Vented Stud.
Was I wrong in expecting that it was also to be merged with 553c Hollow Stud?
Wasn't the point to not have to differentiate between the different stud
types?
Thanks,
~Jen
|
The big merges have not been finished yet. I need help from a developer to make
sure we don't shut down the servers with the merge operation.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2024 22:22 | | Subject: | Re: Seriously? | | Viewed: | 175 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | What was the point of merging 44302 and 54657? The other hinge bricks/plates?
All of the element numbers are gone and now it’s going to be harder to find the
specific variant.
|
They are all here. They have to be added manually after the merge has run its
course. Because of a bug in the PCC upload process, it can be really tedious
to add many of these at once, so I break up the process a bit to keep my sanity:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=44302&v=2
If you spot some that are missing, please file a request to add them. Same thing
with any alternate part numbers. I am adding all original numbers as alternate
numbers so there shouldn't be any trouble with people finding things.
And for the other comments in this thread with concerns that the project is being
executed in a careless or haphazard way, I am working line by line through a
spreadsheet that was prepared and proofread weeks ago. Nothing has been merged
by mistake, and nothing will be.
Sometimes I will do things out of order, or leave a section partially done. This
is because of time (and I am quite behind on the project already) and because
of some technical limitations of the merge feature. There are several "big"
parts where I will need help from a developer to complete the merge without jeopardizing
site performance.
|
Why were the grooved variants merged?
|
Because they were on the list from the beginning:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
The reason they got on the list is because they are not classified as cosmetic
variants or typical grooved parts. The groove became apparent when the teeth
on the hinges was being examined, and the grooves were distinguished for the
same reason as the teeth. But when we remove the reason for recognizing the teeth,
we also remove the reason for recognizing the groove.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 2, 2024 22:14 | | Subject: | Re: Seriously? | | Viewed: | 227 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | What was the point of merging 44302 and 54657? The other hinge bricks/plates?
All of the element numbers are gone and now it’s going to be harder to find the
specific variant.
|
They are all here. They have to be added manually after the merge has run its
course. Because of a bug in the PCC upload process, it can be really tedious
to add many of these at once, so I break up the process a bit to keep my sanity:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=44302&v=2
If you spot some that are missing, please file a request to add them. Same thing
with any alternate part numbers. I am adding all original numbers as alternate
numbers so there shouldn't be any trouble with people finding things.
And for the other comments in this thread with concerns that the project is being
executed in a careless or haphazard way, I am working line by line through a
spreadsheet that was prepared and proofread weeks ago. Nothing has been merged
by mistake, and nothing will be.
Sometimes I will do things out of order, or leave a section partially done. This
is because of time (and I am quite behind on the project already) and because
of some technical limitations of the merge feature. There are several "big"
parts where I will need help from a developer to complete the merge without jeopardizing
site performance.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2024 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: Special assembly item | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, richspin writes:
| | Thanks Saitobricks.ca but they don't show up there either.
|
Sorry wrong category, try going to the special assembly category.
|
Lot ID: 392424894
Lot ID: 392424541
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2024 22:10 | | Subject: | Re: Seeing completed NSS | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | General | |
| In General, TheBrickGuys writes:
| | Is there any way for a store to see if they have ever had an NSS completed against
themselves?
Jim
|
No there, is not (at least not an easy way) but you can ask customer service
any time and they can provide a response.
We are considering sending out a notice after 2 NSS alerts are completed, just
as a warning to sellers. We understand that many NSS alerts are completed accidentally
by well-meaning buyers, and that a completed NSS does not necessarily mean that
a buyer was disenfranchised.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2024 22:06 | | Subject: | Reaction to the R.R. Slugger video | | Viewed: | 430 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello again everyone,
This is my official response to the video from R.R. Slugger concerning the merging
of part variants in the BrickLink catalog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRxNX8Cg_o&t=1s
Here is an initial response to the video, specifically regarding the set inventory
for the Core Magnetizer:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450164
Here is today's response:
*************************************
I’ll start with a couple points I actually agree with Slugger on:
1) BrickLink certainly is an invaluable tool, and one of the things that has
motivated me to invest in the catalog over the years, long before I became a
community admin or started working in the BrickLink office, was knowing that
whatever corrections or additions I would make would instantly circle the globe
and potentially benefit thousands of fans everywhere.
2) Regarding the suggestion to double down on accuracy – that is actually what
we’re doing, if you look at the big picture. I remember discussing with one of
the authors of the LEGO Collector books that came out a few years ago:
and one of the points we discussed was why certain things weren’t included in
a publication that was so comprehensive. The answer was that if a particular
data field didn’t have at least 80% of the data, then there were questions raised
as to how useful that field would be.
Of course this case does not cover all of the changes being made to the BrickLink
catalog, but it does pertain to some of them. The smooth slopes and frosted bricks,
even after 20 years of accepting data from the community, have a very weak connection
to our inventory system. Many of the parts are not represented even a single
time, and of those that are represented, there are serious questions as to the
accuracy of the inventory change requests.
The biggest obstacle in separating variants on BrickLink, especially the older
ones, is lack of real data. So the question comes up, should we have entries
on BrickLink that can’t or never will be represented sufficiently in the inventory
system?
Being orphaned or partially orphaned from the system is a bad thing, and our
stance on that is one of the things that has really changed since Dan built the
inventory system in the early 2000s. It used to be acceptable to have entries
floating around just for buying and selling, but over time we have realized the
power of our inventory system, to the extent that we now use artificial inventories
to represent certain parts (like BAM parts):
By removing some of these variants, the accuracy and inclusiveness of the inventory
system goes up, and that is the primary driving force behind these current changes.
Why not just fill out the data instead of consolidating entries? Because we simply
do not have the data, and if we did, we couldn’t handle it all anyway. There
is no way we can add thousands of new minifigure inventories to the system simply
to accommodate different types of studs.
Next I’d like to give an actual example or something that WILL be lost in
the transition.
Slugger is right – just because the example he gave may not have been the perfect
example, it doesn’t negate the point that something will be lost. So here goes:
Set 7171 from 1999 (Mos Espa Podrace):
is one of the celebrated early Star Wars sets and as such we may consider it
to be at the pinnacle of collector interest. In that set is a yellow dome with
a “blocked open stud” which is part no. 30151a:
[p=30151a,3]
The next version of that part by all accounts was introduced around 2010,
[p=30151b]
and by that time, the Mos Espa Podrace had long been retired. So we can say with
reasonable certainty that this set came originally with domes with blocked open
studs. If you see a copy of the set sitting on someone’s shelf and the domes
on Anakin’s podracer have hollow studs (no little Mercedes symbol), that is a
sure sign that the parts, and maybe even the whole set, is not original.
So if the BrickLink catalog stops distinguishing the “a” from the “b” version,
someone might build it wrong and wouldn’t even know it! However, as a quiz question
for savvy readers, why would this scenario never actually happen in the real
world? What do we know about these the 30151 variants that puts this problem
completely into the realm of the hypothetical?
Next example, set 4778-1 from 2005 (Desert Biplane):
This is not Star Wars buts it’s still a classic in my book. There is a different
kind of dome on the front of this plane (553), but it has the same issues as
the previously mentioned dome part.
[p=553b,5]
This set is from 2005, so it’s not likely that it ever came with the “c” variant.
The 2008 appearance is in the first UCS Death Star which had a really long production
run and has over 50 lines of variants in the BrickLink inventory:
But if this little set were produced up through 2010, there might be a real possibility
of seeing one with a “c” variant.
[p=553c,5]
So with the current merges, this is data that would be lost. People wouldn’t
know about the stud variants, and someone could get any of 3 different stud types
– blocked open, hollow, or even vented. All three exist in red.
[p=3262,5]
Next up is set 6745-1 from 2009 (Propeller Power).
This also has a red 533 on the nose of the plane, but here the inventory system
says it could have either the “b” or “c” variant. Check the change log to see
if you recognize any of the people who added these variants to the set:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=S&itemNo=6745-1&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
We’re pretty sure this came with both “b” and “c” types. It didn’t come with
a vented stud, and someone might mistakenly put one on this model if BrickLink
doesn’t educate them about it, right? That is the premise on why we need these
variants in the catalog, correct?
The thing is, how can we tolerate the difference of stud type in this model,
and not in other models where it is historically incorrect? In this plane model
from 2009, both are correct, so what does that say about the mixing of variants
in other models?
True collectors know that there actually is no replacement part that will ever
perfectly replace a part that is lost. The only truly correct part is the part
the set originally came with. It’s nice to get as close as possible to a correct
replacement part, but it’s a futile attempt.
So I will admit that something is lost in the catalog by harmonizing all the
hollow studs types. But the second message is that whatever is lost is quite
unimportant in relation to the effort it takes for the BrickLink community to
recognize these variants.
We weighed it up, and decided that stud types are not important enough. They
have some importance, and there are some workarounds available for the people
who really want to go down that path. But overall, what we seem to be losing
is less than what we believe we are gaining.
**************************************
One more detail about the video – in navigating around the BrickLink catalog,
I noticed Slugger used the new inventory tab on the catalog page instead of the
proper inventory page accessible by the link at the top of the page.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=6989-1
There are multiple problems with this version of the inventory. First, there
is no link to the change log, which for specialists is a must. Reading the change
log lets you determine the accuracy of the data you are consuming.
Second, the match IDs do not line up with the inventory notes, so any mention,
for example, of “match ID 99” (which is critical to understanding variant inventories)
doesn’t make any sense.
Indispensable
Some of my colleagues were surprised to see such a strong reaction from our users
on this topic. But the fact is, variants are an indispensable feature of the
BrickLink catalog and they are one of the main reasons for the “sealed set” standard
we maintain for new inventories. Keeping this standard comes at a cost, and it’s
important for people to know that all of this work and energy is appreciated.
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1103
BrickLink is not descending into a parts oblivion where nothing is distinguished.
I made that very clear from the very first announcement. This is simply a mid-way
correction to enable us to do better at what we already do. I trust that over
the coming months and years you will come around to believing me on that point.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2024 14:57 | | Subject: | Re: Variant merger causing XML files to fail | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
| In Technical Issues, DonnaxNL writes:
| | In Technical Issues, DonnaxNL writes:
| | Hi there,
I got notified by a Rebrickable customer who purchased moc instructions from
me that uploading of the XML file didn't work. After taking a look at it,
I noticed they were all parts that have a 'b' suffix in them. They all
are from tile pieces, just removing the b's from all the items works, but
tile pieces are really common and I assume this has not only broke mine, but
will break everyone's XML files people have shared.
Please let someone take a look at it.
|
Meanwhile there is no consistency...
Has the -b and 'with Groove' moniker removed, but [P=3068bpb0431,1]
has not. While the regular has...
|
We are still updating the 2 x 2 decorated tiles. There are over 2000 of them,
so it will take a while.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2024 14:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 276 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
|
Today the catalog team got a message (in all caps) protesting the variant merges.
Some of the points have not been addressed yet, so I thought I would take this
opportunity to answer these before we get started with merging.
Sorry it's so long. 
01 WHY RUIN SOMETHING THAT WORKS SO WELL! YOU WILL LOSE MANY CUSTOMERS AROUND
THE WOURLD,
IN THIS HOBBY/WORK OF ART THE BUYER ALWAYS COMES FIRST!
One of the things people will learn about the BrickLink catalog is that it is
HUGE. Meaning that it would be hard to ruin it by just changing a few entries.
02 IF YOU DO THIS, YOU WILL DESTROY THE GREATEST REFERENCE FOR LEGO PARTS ANYWHERE
ON THE INTERNET, PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE WORLD HAVE BEEN DOING DATA ENTRIES FOR
20 YEARS, ALL THIS DATA WILL BE GONE!
We are actually saving the data, and others have done this too:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1454780
In some cases we will be making Help Pages to preserve the most useful data.
03 THER IS NO NEED TO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE BACUSE WHEN THERE IS 2 OR 3
VARIANTS THER IS ALWAS A PICTURE OF THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF EACH PART SHOWING THE
DIFFERENT DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS!
The need is both for sellers who have boxes of used parts to sort and buyers
who have to make their way around a catalog with entries that are hard to explain.
04 MANY OF US WILL USE CHINESE BASED WEB SITES AND OR BRICK-OWL.COM TO SOURCE
OUR PARTS!
I don't think so!
05 YOU ARE MAKING TO VERY BAD OF A DECISION WITH NOT IN PUT FROM THE US, AFOLS
/ BUYERS / SELLERS,
We took input from people for the last month in the Forum, plus other input for
many years. These decisions were not made in a vaccum.
06 DIFFERENT VARIANTS HAVE HAD SEPARATE ENTRIES FOR 20 YEARS, DONT "FIX"
WHAT IS NOT BROKEN OR YOU WILL HAVE THE SAME FATE AS SEARS
07 THIS DOES NOT HONOR DANIEL JEZEK, THE FOUNDER OF BRICK-LINK.COM IN ANY WAY!
For sure, Dan would have been on the side of this project. He sometimes referred
to the "balkanization" of the catalog as a bad things. Many of the variants
being removed would likely not have been approved under his leadership.
08 THIS RUNIS EVERTHING HE DID FOR AFOLS / BUYERS / SELLERS
IF HE WAS STILL ALIVE TODAY HE WOULD BE VERY DISAPPOINTED!
I think he would be relieved to not have to account for several different kinds
of hollow studs. In fact, he was the one that made the policy that only ONE head
stud variant would be used in all minfigure inventories. By continuing to allow
solid stud heads in early inventories, we are actually breaking this policy.
09/A IN JULY 2018 YOU INTRODUCED STUDIO WITCH IS IN INDISPENSABLE, STUDIO AND
BRICK LINK ARE LIKE SALT AND PEPPER OR PRIMER AND PAINT THEY MUST BE IN SYNCHRONIZATION
WITH EATCH OTHER
Agreed, although it is interesting that despite my personal efforts to further
integrate Studio into this Forum, both the administration and the Studio userbase
have insisted on keeping them separate.
09/B RIGHT NOW I CAN DESIGN A MOC ON STUDIO, I WILL THEN EXPORT THE PARTS TO
BRICK LINK AND ORDER THE PARTS, BUILD THE MOC, CREATE THE INSTRUCTIONS AND SELL
THEM ON REBRICKABLE.COM
Or you could do this in MOC shop next year (2025), but only if the MOC meets
certain standards.
09/C WHEN YOU MERGE VARIANTS YOU WILL RUIN BRICK LINK WEATHER YOU INTENDED TO
OR NOT! IF YOU DO THIS I WILL HAVE NO CHOSE BUT TO USE BRICK-OWL.COM FOR THE
MERGED VARIANTS
I'm not entirely sure whether Brick Owl will retain these variants after
we have merged them. I would advise against it, but if Brick Owl wants to corner
the market on parts that almost nobody wants, they are free to to that. The Brick
Owl catalog was decoupled from the BrickLink catalog years ago with the invention
of the Brick Owl ID (BOID).
09/D THE PROBLEM IS BRICK-OWL.COM IS NOT INTEGRATED INTO STUDIO, THAT MAKES ORDERING
PARTS A LOT MORE DIFFICULT, AND VERY TIME CONSUMING!
Well there is a reason that Studio is integrated with the BrickLink catalog and
not other catalogs. We pay for the development and maintenance of Studio, and
we choose to benefit our platform with the integration.
09/E I WILL HAVE TO MANUALY AND IVDVUALY LOOK FOR EACH PART ON BRICK-OWL.COM
THIS WILL TAKE HOURS!
My advice is keep using BrickLink. The variants we are removing aren't going
to make a lick of difference in a Studio model. I would welcome any real-life
cases where this variant merge project affects people's using of Studio.
10/A ALSO IF I BUY INSTRUCTIONS ON REBRICKABLE.COM AND BUY THE PARTS FROM BRICK-LINK.COM
THIS PROCESS SHOULD ONLY TAKE A FEW MINUTES FOR THE ALGORITHM TO PROSESS THE
DATA
Rebrickable is an affiliate of ours, and they are being briefed on all changes.
They Rebrickable folks are quite the experts at mapping things, so I wouldn't
worry about this too much.
10/B IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETTWEEN SLOPED BRICKS
WITH A RORGH OR TEXTURED SURFACE AND SLOPED BRICKS WHITH A SMOOTH SURFACE
Sorry, it is not. There are not simply 2 kinds of textures. There are a range
of textures that are out there, and only showing 2 on BrickLink presents a false
dichotomy to our users.
10/C FOR EXAMPLE SLOPE BRICK 2 x 4 (45°) WITH ROUGH SURFACE 3037 IS MORE DESIRABLE
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GET SCTRATED AS EASLY AS ONE WITH A SMOTH SURFACE
Yet currently on BrickLink (pre-merge) there is no way to order only a "rough
surface" slope. You could get any of a wide variety of textures, including
ones that some people think are smooth. There are a lot of blind partouts going
on out there, so don't think for a minute that every seller listing even
the smooth ones has actually looked at every brick, especially the New stock.
10/D https://img.brickowl.com/files/image_cache/larger/lego-red-slope-2-x-4-45-with-rough-surface-3037-32-935193-81.jpg
BrickLink Discussions Moderators, please leave this link as an exception. That
is indeed a beautiful image.
11/A IF YOU INTEGRATE BRICK-OWL.COM WITH STUDIO, IT WOULD MAKE THINGS EASER FOR
US AFOLS
The chance of that happening is very, very low - sorry.
11/B HOWHEVER THE NUMBER OF PARTS, NUMBER OF STORES AND THE SIZE STORES ARE FAR
GREATER ON BRICK-LINK.COM THAN ON BRICK-OWL.COM OR THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE PART
IN THE COLOR THAT I WANT SIMPLY BECAUSE THER ARE LESS AVABILE
Very true, and one of the reasons for that is the active catalog present on BrickLink.
People are attracted to the catalog, even though most variants the LEGO Group
releases never make in into the catalog.
12/A LET US THE SELLERS AND BUYERS DECIDE THROUGH A BINDING VOTE, WEATHER OR
NOT TO MERGE THE VARIANTS AFTER ALL IF THERE WAS NO DEMAND / BUYERS THER WOULD
BE NO REASION FOR THIS WEB-SITE TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE
I've said this before, but if we left it up to a general user vote, BrickLink
would lose most of the variants in the catalog today.
12/B THAT MEANS THAT YOU WOULD HONOR THE VOTE AND PUBLISH THE NUMBERS FOR ALL
TO SEE!
We don't even publish the votes for Forum suggestions or BDP models. It would
increase transparency, but that may be too transparent.
13 THE PROBLEM IS BRICK OWL.COM IS NOT INTEGRATED WITH BRICK VALUT.TOYS
THAT COULD RUIN ONE OF THE BEST PLACES TO GET CUSTOM STAR WARS MOCS/SETS
Brick Owl and Brick Vault are their own sites with their own concerns.
14 PUT THE OLD MOULDS / VARIANTS ON A SEPREATE WEB SITE! LINKS INCLUDED
There are some great sites out there that document many variants that we don't
recognize on BrickLink. We have no issue with people building or using those
sites.
15 IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS IDEA, ASK US THE SELLERS AND BUYERS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM! ALSO THER WAS NO PROBLEN IN THE FIRST PLACE,
We have been asking these questions for years. Every meeting, every convention,
every Forum thread. These changes have been a long time coming, and community
input was at the heart of the decision to move ahead.
16 ARE THE PART NUMBERS GOING CHANGE OR MERGE ON STUDIO?
Yes. Studio pulls these from the BrickLink catalog, so they will change. The
tiles have already changed.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 19:55 | | Subject: | Re: Store Inventory Description Changes | | Viewed: | 90 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
| In Technical Issues, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Technical Issues, macebobo writes:
| | Recently a change was made to the UI that only impacts sellers who like to add
a little color to their listings.
When the UI updates, it escapes any valid html color to the exact same rgb equivalent
for some unknown reason, taking 10 of the already limited 255 characters.
Please go back to not altering perfectly valid html code.
|
Please re-allow people to voluntarily open BrickLink pages in an iFrame (broken
since 15 dec 2023).
Even more important, please implement a log of any user side change?
We DO know BrickLink is "AS IS".
But it may increase your Karma thing if you to be completely transparent with
us?
|
The iFrame and the HTML issues are intentional security related changes. In both
cases, we tried to minimaly disruptive.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2024 20:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 144 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, oukexergon writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned
|
Can you please respond to the given rationales for why this should not happen?
These are very different parts (not variants) in connectivity, function even
within Lego instructions, and of course aesthetics where they have a specific
purpose in this case (usually used for transparency). Where else is this part
merged? Who would benefit from the loss of this unique part?
Can you comment on why this and not the 1x2x1 without inside supports would be
merged?
|
Because the transparent 3004 and 3065 both exist, so this is necessary to keep
them apart.
The 2454 and 46212 do not both exist in transparent colors:
[p=46212,12]
The only reason to keep them separate is to distinguish the early solid color
versions which had no side supports. But that is a minor consideration and practically
speaking there is no functional difference.
You would also be hard pressed to say that any of those early sets came ONLY
with the earliest version of the part. Both types are correct, and maybe there
were both types present in some copies.
As for people needing to place 1 x 1 round tiles inside the 46212, this only
happens with the transparent version.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 22:20 | | Subject: | Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 610 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
Frosted bricks
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Smooth slopes
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Connections between studs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. Complete
research needs to be done for the related 1 x 3 inverted slopes and the differing
angles, plus more work to understand how the 2 x 2 inverted slope relates to
these parts.
Sprue marks
The minifigure chair was the only one in this category and it will be merged
as planned.
Torsos with ribs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned, but as part of this project
we will not be touching 32064c (Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole and Side Supports)
or 10247 (Plate Modified 2 x 2 with Pin Hole). More research needs to be done
in regards to the practical use cases of the parts and their actual use in LEGO
sets. As part of this project, however, we will also mark part 772 for deletion
(with a 3 month time frame before a merge), even though it wasn’t on the original
list. This variant likely does not even exist and it’s similar in class to the
46212.
X-shaped axle holes
These will be merged as planned.
Hinges with teeth
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Duplo bricks with bottom tubes
These will be merged as planned.
Blocked and vented studs
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Determined entries for very common parts
Update: We are well on our way through the decorated versions of 3 out of the
4 parts. Another 250 of these are scheduled to be changed on Tuesday (tomorrow).
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 15:55 | | Subject: | Re: New policy on Forum sales posts | | Viewed: | 134 times | | Topic: | Administrative | |
| In Administrative, TorontoLego writes:
| | Hi,
I posted a sale yesterday and got a message alerting me to this message (below).
Sorry I had missed that. One of the things it says is: Bans will be lifted
immediately if the member contacts us and lets us know they agree to the new
policy.
I'm not sure if this applies to me (ie if there's now a ban); however,
I wanted to confirm that I have no been made aware of this new policy and agree
to abide by it.
Thanks and all the best,
Mike
(TorontoBricks)
|
If you can post in the Forum now, you are not banned. The ban feature is all
or nothing when it comes to different topics.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 02:34 | | Subject: | Re: Adding to the Problem | | Viewed: | 178 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Considering the recent displeasure of the community regarding variants, why is
BrickLink adding to the variant problem with new catalog entries like these?
Instead of wandering aimlessly with no plan whatsoever and still
no written guidelines for variants, it might be wiser for this website to employ
someone at a high level who is capable of crafting solid, long-term visions for
the future.
|
Recognizing molded vs printed is nothing new on BrickLink. And these are collectors'
items 100%. Furthermore, they present no problems in the inventory system.
The parts in the variant project are all mainstream parts and are primarily used
for building, not collecting. We'll get some rules up soon, but it's
pretty clear from the Help overview page what will NOT be distinguished in the
future on BrickLink:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
There definitely is a plan when it comes to drawing the line on variants, and
it's a long-term plan that takes into account future upgrades to the system.
We have been discussing these points for almost a year now with various groups,
including our catalog panel. Don't mistake our ability to modify a plan to
accommodate certain groups of users with the inability to make solid independent
decisions.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 11:59 | | Subject: | Re: Bricklink Transaction | | Viewed: | 98 times | | Topic: | Designer Program | |
| In Designer Program, Senna88 writes:
| | In Designer Program, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Designer Program, Senna88 writes:
| | I have made purchase of a bricklink designer program set. The payment says pending
on paypal which is understandable but I have not received a confirmation email
nor has my lego account updated with the order. Is this normal for pre ordering?
|
Please contact LEGO Consumer and Shopper Engagement (CSE) for details about your
order.
|
Ok thanks. Do you have a link or an email?
|
https://www.lego.com/en-au/service
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Bricklink Transaction | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Designer Program | |
| In Designer Program, Senna88 writes:
| | I have made purchase of a bricklink designer program set. The payment says pending
on paypal which is understandable but I have not received a confirmation email
nor has my lego account updated with the order. Is this normal for pre ordering?
|
Please contact LEGO Consumer and Shopper Engagement (CSE) for details about your
order.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 12:34 | | Subject: | Re: Orders | | Viewed: | 181 times | | Topic: | Designer Program | |
| In Designer Program, brickerking writes:
| | In Designer Program, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Designer Program, brickerking writes:
| | It took weeks to reach halfway on the last BDP… This is an epic fail for BL and
consumers… epic payday for resellers.
|
That is not true. The last BDP round sold out completely in less than 24 hours.
Things are moving very fast this time too. If you want to get one of these sets,
you need to place the order now.
|
Memory must be failing me, sorry!
If these are all legit orders then congrats to your marketing team!
|
We actually boosted our server configuration WAY past what we ever thought we
would need. The site was flying fast yesterday with all that bandwidth.
But the demand for these sets is super high and it looks like they will be mostly
gone by the end of the morning. A good problem to have, but a problem nonetheless.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 12:25 | | Subject: | Re: Orders | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Designer Program | |
| In Designer Program, brickerking writes:
| | It took weeks to reach halfway on the last BDP… This is an epic fail for BL and
consumers… epic payday for resellers.
|
That is not true. The last BDP round sold out completely in less than 24 hours.
Things are moving very fast this time too. If you want to get one of these sets,
you need to place the order now.
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 01:04 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | Thanks for this consolidated update - it's definitely helpful.
FYI, though, the image and link for issue #11 on the Overview page are both broken
because
of... the catalogue change that issue #11 of the Overview page is supposed to
be documenting.
|
Thanks for reporting. The broken link is now fixed.
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 2, 2024 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: Comment from seller missing from invoices | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
| In Technical Issues, QBricks writes:
| | I've sent a couple of invoices this morning (AU time) and both are missing
'comments from seller', which means buyers aren't getting payment
information.
My first one affected was sent at 19.54 BrickLink time. Anyone else having the
same problem?
Judy
|
We believe we have fixed this issue. Please let us know if the problem persists.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 17:32 | | Subject: | Re: Bricklink API - Update Store Inventory | | Viewed: | 250 times | | Topic: | Technical Issues | |
| In Technical Issues, BrickFreedom writes:
| | Hi
Have you made changes to the (Update Store Inventory -- PUT - /inventories/{inventory_id})
API request?
Previously you could call the API with the following parameters and would have
no issues:
['quantity' = '-2']
Now it's responding with:
["description":"String input must not be null","message":"PARAMETER_MISSING_OR_INVALID"]
Weirdly a couple of requests have completed successfully but most of the requests
are failing with the above error message. Can someone please advise what this
error is and if it's a bug that has been released into the API by accident?
|
We are closely monitoring the effects of changing the item number for 4 basic
parts earlier today. There have been reports that Brickstore is having issues
and now you are reporting about API.
Please take a look here for the 4 numbers that were changed:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?viewYear=&viewMonth=&viewGeDate=&q=&viewStatus=A&itemType=&viewAction=I
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 178 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, macebobo writes:
I haven't fully addressed the video by R.R. Slugger yet, but I plan to in
the next day or two.
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:22 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions for 910002 studgate | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Help | |
| In Help, legomalego writes:
| | Is there a secret to downloading the instructions for this set?
I have tried many times and it always seems to reset just as the download is
almost complete.
Frustrating to say the least.
Does somebody have a better link?
Thanks
|
If you're having trouble dowloading the instructions, try the low resolution
version:
https://bdpinstructions.s3.amazonaws.com/910002_LowRes.pdf
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 20:13 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 172 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, taxan writes:
Thank you for the input.
| | Determined Entries for Very Common Parts
You are aware that what you are doing here, by removing the "with Groove"
text you are creating a “undetermined type” entry. That thing BL have
been working for years to get ride of. People that com her to chop can no longer
be sure what type they will get. Many seller that is to lacy to determent what
version they have will use this entry.
|
You are correct that normally we try to remove undetermined entries, and we did
go through a long period of correcting inventories with this part. Officially
they may be undetermined again, but they will be like 3001 and 3001old. This
subset (umbrella) relationship works well for super basic parts like this where
we don't want to burden every user of the site with the "with groove"
text.
The main reason why these and other related parts are being treated as an exception
is because of how old the original versions of the parts are. Tiles without groove
were last produced 50 years ago. They are relatively rare now and are mostly
in the realm of the collector. I have heard that some builders like them, but
then they can buy them from the "a" entry.
| | Blocked and Vented Studs
Why are you destroying the database that so many AFOLs have been help building
for years.
Adding a note to the listing are not going to help especial when we talking 100
of thousand notes that have to added and when Search engine like “Easy Bye”
doesn't even show notes when you using it.
And with the listing gone nobody will know where to add those notes.
|
I'll address this below.
| | Smooth slopes
Try to add a sticker to a rouge surface.
|
How smooth does a slope have to be to be considered a smooth slope on BrickLink?
This is the main problem with these types of entries. Listings for sale are subjective,
and the inventory records are subjective too. Take a look at all the sets these
"smooth" slopes are in, and then look at the ones they are not in - from
the same years. The data is almost meaningless.
| | Sprue marks
Are the windows glass going to be rename/merged to ?
|
No, they are not mainstream parts.
| | When people are building MOCs they want them to look good. A sprue mark are for
the most part something the doesn't want.
|
Exactly. So why do we have a dedicated entry for the version people DON'T
want? Nobody seems to have an answer for that, but that is the current system.
My advice for builders is, if you don't like the sprue mark, buy new chairs.
If the sprue is a problem, sellers should mark the lot as deficient in some way,
just like you would handle a batch of a color that was a little off, or bricks
that were heavily used.
| | Torsos with ribs
Like people have been telling you if they wont the old Minifigur they don’t
want the new Torso, (and some of those Torso wont even survive a Leg assemble
from the wrong time period whiteout cracking).
|
We will likely keep the torsos in the catalog and rename them to not refer to
the ribs. The real problem we're up against is the unwillingness to have
enough separate minifigure entries to handle all the permutations of variants.
Currently, this is not a problem with the torsos. But it could be if we start
adding torsos based on the ribs alone.
And just for the record, here again, the "vintage" entry is the umbrella
entry. No one is guaranteed an original minifigure when they buy under that entry.
If something is truly original, the seller really should mention this in the
notes.
| | X-shaped axle holes
+ and x shaped axle hole often have different use.
+ shape are for better and stronger connection and x is mostly for easy connection
and removing.
|
I'm sure there is a slight difference in performance between the two types,
but after having tried the x shape for a while, LEGO engineers have abandoned
that shape of hole. Functionally, they are considered equivalent, and the only
reason we would continue to distinguish them is for cosmetic reasons. Only the
1 x 2 brick with axle hole can really claim a cosmetic difference, but since
the version of the part that people want is so common now, it's hard to justify
the time sellers must take to sort them. Where is the market for parts with x-shaped
holes? Even as a collector you would be hard pressed to say a set only came with
the x-shaped hole. Look at the inventory data we have.
| | Blocked and vented studs
And here we are again. I have been here so long that I remember that BL at one
point even had it in its TOS that forbid the user to add Minifigs heads with
one of those.
|
Thank you for remembering this! And what we are doing now is reverting to Dan's
original policy, with the exception being made for solid stud heads, because
solid stud vs hollow stud is something the catalog recognizes everywhere now.
When the Hollow Stud minifigure heads started to come out, I felt it was a risky
thing to start distinguishing them in the catalog, and I refused to split other
parts on similar grounds. This one has an "undetermined" hollow stud:
But when the vented stud came out (and apparently there are two versions of the
vented stud as well) things were stretched too far. Now we were putting notes
in minifigure inventories and then adding the loose minifigure head as an alternate
item in the set with no matching Match ID.
For a while the case was made that because these parts involved minifigures,
it was worth all the fuss to separate the parts. But on the other hand, there
was no willingness at all to make enough minifigure entries to handle the true
number of permutations that were coming in sets.
People have suggested adding alternate parts for minifigure inventories, but
that goes against Dan's original plan for the site. He could have added alternates
to those inventories, but he chose not to. The reason is that when selling a
minifigure, if 1 out of 4 parts is the wrong type, that is a major problem. This
is why we police the minifigure listings for missing items. We take down hundreds
of them every week.
If the type of hollow stud really mattered to people, we could split the minifigure
listings accordingly. But the fact is that most people don't care about which
version of hollow head, because most minifigures have headgear or hairpieces,
and the stud type was never meant to have any meaning beyond the technical workings
of molding plastic. That's why there are over 1000 minifigure heads that
are exactly the same print, but have a different stud type.
What matters more is the printing on the head. This is what we need to spend
our time cataloging and filling up Item Names with. If minifigures were an edge
case like Clikits, we wouldn't prevent exhaustive catalog efforts to represent
everything to such a degree of fineness.
However, minifigure parts populate the very largest categories on BrickLink and
they continue to grow at a wild pace. Minifigures are VERY popular, they are
VERY mainstream, and they cannot be encumbered by excessive mold variations.
Of course, it's not just minifigure heads that are affected by this. Categorically,
BrickLink is unrecognizing the different hollow stud types in all parts - hollow,
blocked open, vented thin and vented thick.
| | Those are imported time reference for the Minifigs.
|
Yes, but the time reference is skewed by an inventory system that is incomplete,
and it can be replaced by a simple chart in a Help page that shows the approximate
years these various heads appeared. The BrickLink system can tell you no different
and no better.
| | By doing this (and I think this it only the start) you are more or less killing
BrinkLink.
By destroying the database BL are removing many buyers reason to com here. They
need to go to other places to get the info they need and the going to buy what
they looking for there.
|
In previous threads I have likened this move to pruning a garden. If the gardener
knew that pruning would destroy the garden, they wouldn't do it.
| | You didn’t even send a mail about this to the most important group on BL The
Buyers.
Whiteout buyer there will be no reason for seller to be here and you get no fee
to pay for everything.
Go through with and i give the site max 5 years before its gone.
|
I'm not going to get into which group on BrickLink is most important. We're
doing this for the greater good, and that includes members from every different
group.
| | I think the best thing to do is cancel the whole ting for now and start working
on an umbrella entry that can have more than one sub entry. That way you can
still have the best database and lacy (seller that don’t want to take
there time to sort out different molds or don’t know how to) sellers can list
the way they want.
|
We may cancel a few of these variant merges, but I do believe most of them will
go through. And I am 100% behind any effort to give us better tools to handle
variants and the different audiences that we have. But these particular variants
I don't imagine will ever be handled by a separate system. They are just
too obscure. Most people wouldn't even know they exist without the BrickLink
entries.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2024 18:38 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 151 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, connie writes:
| | These vintage parts should all go into a vintage area on Bricklink. Put them
into a separate area. Should not be that hard to just move them.
connie
By the way, speaking of working on stuff that really doesn't need to be worked
on..........we were told a couple of years ago that once all the vat and sales
tax was added to the checkout that THEN they would fix it so that those with
a sales tax number would not have to pay the tax. Has this happened? NO!! Nothing
is more frustrating than having to pay tax on something bought internationally.
So stupid. This is more important to me than variation in parts being redone.
Connie
|
US sales tax exemption is a project currently underway in the Marketplace development
team. No promises as to when it will be deployed, but it is being worked on agressively
and will likely be the next tax-related feature released.
Catalog changes have very little to do with our technical resources. We use them
to pull data but usually not to implement changes, unless we lack tools for a
specific project.
We considered placing frosted bricks and smooth slopes in their own categories
away from mainstream parts, and that idea is still on the table. However, both
of those areas have serious issues and it is likely that we will not keep them.
But at the very least we will retain information about them in a couple of dedicated
Help articles.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 21:43 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 140 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, dsimpsonugcs writes:
| | | | There are some clear errors in your research data. You are counting the sales
of the standard variants of the bricks multiple times. For instance, there are
three frosted variants of 3005. For each of those variants you attribute 3911
sales of the standard variant. You should count the sales of each standard variant
only once, but in your spreadsheet, you do it three times. The total sales of
the standard variants should be 20184, not 38150. The ratio of sales is actually
closer to 9:1, not 17:1.
|
|
Ok, let's dive in.
| | TL;DR Definite errors in data presented by BL admin, likely much of the data
is bad too. Conclusions can't be trusted.
|
All of the data in my chart comes from the publicly available 6-month price guide.
You are welcome to use this data to produce your own statistics. I would be curious
to see if you come to any different overall conclusions about frosted bricks
as a result.
| | I may have misunderstood the comparison of sales of parts in the variant listings
vs. those in the standard listing. Are sales in the standard listing limited
to only those with descriptions of "frosted" or some such? If not, what
exactly was counted? And if so, what exactly was searched for when collecting
the data?
|
My chart is a comparison between the data in all frosted entries and the data
in the standard entries (e.g. Item No. 3010). Because the frosted bricks are
a subset of regular bricks, we are basically seeing how they fare on their own
vs. mixed together will regular bricks. Keep in mind that for some of these cases,
there is no "regular" version - or another way of saying it is, the regular
version and the frosted version are the same thing.
Because this is publicly available data, I did not search sellers' notes.
One of the drawbacks of our price guide is that value can change drastically
depending on what a seller types into that field. Some of the ones sold for a
penny, for example, could have been filler (junk) bricks, but the data is mixed
in with the rest.
| | I ask because if the search was just "frosted" then I suspect you are
overcounting quite substantially as you are counting different types of fruit.
Old transparent parts become less transparent over time and as such are described
as "frosted." These are properly listed in the standard listing as they
aren't variants. They are standard bricks with age related quality issues.
Variants are different due to manufacturing. A new one would look different
than a new standard brick. I searched some of the standard types for "frosted"
descriptions. Some of them are indeed for a variant (e.g. "frosted with
vertical lines" ), but most were not. Others were for mixed lots where there's
no way to know how many deviants might be included. Are the ones that aren't
actually variants being counted? They shouldn't be, but I suspect all of
these are being counted. Can you please clarify the criteria for inclusion in
the counts?
|
Everything is counted. It's a comparison between what gets sold under one
class of entries (frosted) vs. what gets sold under another class of entries
(regular/undetermined), and then of course filtered by the Transparent-Clear
color and "Used" as a condition. I also used the regular average, not
the quantity average.
| | The counts were already way off due to the incorrect double and triple counting
of sales from the standard listings I previously mentioned, but if the above
is also true, then they are much further off.
|
If you take a look at the data, you will see I divided the real numbers by 2
or 3 depending on how many variants will merge to a single regular entry. So
for the 3010, there are 3 frosted entries which map to a single regular entry.
The number of total used sales as of today is 1481 (see first image below), divided
by 3 is 494, a little higher than the 480 from the other day that you see in
my chart. Maybe the extra attention has motivated people to buy them!
| | Also, taking the average of the price ratios is an incorrect operation. You
can't take the average (arithmetic mean) of ratios. You have to take the
geomean. Quick math example! The inverse of a ratio of 4:1 (4) is 1:4 (0.25).
Logically the "average" of 4:1 and 1:4 should be 1 (geomean of 4 and
0.25), not 2.125 (arithmetic mean of 4 and 0.25). Please use the geomean as
the average you posted (2.12) is wrong and misleading. FYI, the geomean of the
provided data is 1.47. However, if the counts are wrong, that means the average
prices are also wrong, and thus the ratios, and finally the geomean are wrong
as well. Garbage in, garbage out.
|
2.12 is indeed the correct average of those numbers. I will concede that the
geometric mean is better at handling ratios and outliers in general (of which
there are several in this data that I did not remove), but the arithmetic mean
is calculated correctly.
And I calculated the geometric mean to be 1.47, which is the same figure you
have. It still proves the point that the prices are better under the standard
entries.
However, a much truer comparison can be shown by taking the entire sales volume
of both entry types and dividing them by the number of items sold. This will
give you the average price per part in each section, which by a quick estimate
(not getting today's data or using the quantity average prices) shows $0.10
per brick under the frosted entries and $0.12 per brick under the regular entries
(see second image below).
This is still an improvement, and together with the sales volume, it still shows
that it would be better for selling if everyone listed under the regular entries.
| | The research you've done and the data you've collected is being used
to make decisions, or at least provide evidence those decisions are based on
something real. The data, at least in this case, are highly suspect. The analysis
of that data definitely has errors. If you collected similar data for the other
proposed changes, I would guess they contain similar errors. It is improper
to draw conclusions given the current bad state of the data and its analysis.
Are you going to go back, correct the errors, and better validate the data?
|
Like I mentioned above, the public data is there for anyone to use. I would welcome
any differing research, especially when it comes to conclusions that can be drawn
as a result.
By the way, data used to make decisions internally is pulled internally and represents
a much truer and broader picture, although with the BrickLink price guide, it
really is only a guide because of all the irregularities it has to account for.
There are different taxes (some are included and some not), there are canceled
orders, problem orders, and variability due to notes. Like the inventory system,
the price guide is meant to be an indicator, not scientific proof. But it's
what we have, so we use it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 18:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 138 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Tarkur writes:
| | Just thought of some extra speculative questions regarding this update.
|
Some excellent questions, thank you!
| | 1. So models in future designer programs will not be allowed to use any of the
following variants you are removing? So for example someone uses part 30389b
or 30389c with an axel through it for structural integrity of the model. Will
Bricklink in this case police them to remove this at the cost of stability or
the models apperance?
|
Designers for BDP must use bricks that are in the official building palette associated
with that round of the program. These are by definition only the newest versions
of the part. Questions of stability and part availability are handled case-by-case
by our BDP staff who take each model through several rounds of scrutiny.
| | 2. Will we see more updates of this type in the future? depending on the answer
bricklink may lose users in the future.
|
Probably nothing this big. If we get a checkbox system there would be further
large updates for sure, but they would be of a different nature.
| | 3. Will this diminish buyers ability to report issues with their orders in cases
where the seller didn't use the notes feature on a merged item?
|
No. Buyers can always bring any concern to us - but hopefully to the seller first.
We get very few complaints about variants, actually.
| | 5. How will this update affect buyers wanted lists? Will items in those lists
be merged or just deleted? Will buyers get a notice for changing their wanted
lists?
|
After the merges, when the buyer tries to use their wanted list, it will prompt
them to correct any duplicate lots they may have. No lot will be deleted. At
that point they may wish to make adjustments or simply consolidate their lists.
| | 6. What will happen to colors of parts that only exist for one variant?
|
They will appear in the resulting merged part. Images will transfer over - plus
the price guide, wanted lists, my collection, etc.
| | 7. Are you going to remove variants within stud.io as well after this change?
|
Studio does not recognize all variants anyway, but we will be giving them a list
of changes so they can update their indexes. I have a feeling it will simply
be a matter of changing a few Item Numbers. They might lose a few parts, but
I would be surprised.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 280 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
|
The two YouTube videos I have seen are these:
R.R. Slugger: There's a BAD Bricklink Update Coming...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRxNX8Cg_o
DuckBricks: Why Would Bricklink Do This? Is Bricklink Stupid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk47Wb18ibg
In this post I will address the second one:
I'll begin with a quote from Chris which he used as part of the introduction:
“I decided to take down every single one of my wall displays and actually
consolidate them to be a lot better, neater, tighter, and more concise to allow
myself to be able to put up even more stuff.”
What Chris is doing with his collection is, in a way, similar to what we are
doing with the BrickLink catalog.
I do actually agree with the overall sentiment from this video. However, there
are several points I would like to challenge:
Quote from the video: “from the beginning, the catalog has just been
continuing to grow and grow."
Not completely true. There have been major corrections like this in the past,
and we make minor corrections regularly. One of the things that is often missed
by the average BrickLink member is that we reject the overwhelming majority of
variants. That means that the BrickLink catalog only grows to the extent that
we let it grow, and there are considerable restraints even now on the number
of variants we will accept.
2 x 2 Hinge Brick – this is a merge between 30389c and 30389b. It does
not involve the hinge brick without axle hole 30389a.
[p=30389c]
* | | 30389b Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical and Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 30389a Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical without Axle Hole
Parts: Hinge |
While we are talking about this early brick that many of you are excited to distinguish,
I will point out that we are missing inventory information in 15 Sets and 1 Gear
Item:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=S
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30389&in=G
The determined version is only in 10 sets currently. If this variant matters
to you, please help us fill out the data in the BrickLink inventory system.
A correction concerning the 2 x 2 hinge brick:
“As a correction to the video, it has become clear that one of the examples
I mentioned, the 2x2 brick with click joint, is NOT being consolidated when it
comes to axle hole versus no hole - just the specific molding type of axle hole.
However, all other examples mentioned are accurate, and from a database point
of view, I still stand by my original sentiments in the video that this change
ideally should not be happening.”
However, there are indeed issues with the other examples:
Click Hinges –The number of teeth does not affect the number of locking
positions. A lot of people think that when they see the distinction in the catalog,
but it’s actually not true. This misunderstanding is one reason we want to remove
this distinction. These are simply cosmetic differences on a part that is not
typically used for cosmetic purposes.
[p=50340]
1 x 4 Clear Bricks – The 1 x 4 frosted bricks will be merged with the
1 x 4 standard brick (3010), not the specialty brick without tubes underneath
(3066).
[p=3010f3]
Smooth Slopes – there was a comment in the video that the result of a
merge will be a “random hodgepodge” where buyers may receive slopes that don’t
match each other. But this is actually the condition of the marketplace now,
pre-merge.
The oldest slopes had a very heavy texture (see photo below), whereas newer ones
have much less texture. And in addition to the slopes that seemingly have no
texture, real-life listings contain everything in between.
The presence of “Smooth” entries in the catalog gives the illusion that there
are only two grades of texture, but the reality is that listings based on subjective
criteria will produce subjective results. In fact, I’m pretty sure that much
of the Smooth Slope data we see in the set inventories is also subjective depending
on the experience of the contributor.
Community Poll – We don’t base our decisions on polls because if we did,
the collector community on BrickLink would have their agenda completely wiped
out by the majority who don’t care about picky details. Instead, we appoint very
detail oriented admins who represent the collector community and they are the
ones making the calls on variants on a day-to-day basis.
Date - Feb 1 or Feb 15 – Feb 1 was the original date we were going to
begin changes, but due to delays with the list of changes and requests to extend
the time a little, we pushed the date to Feb 15. However, the name and number
changes to tiles and the 1 x 1 round brick will start on Feb 1. Since these are
not merges, they will not affect listings in the same way.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 17:10 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 138 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Legorama writes:
| | So why has this project been touted as a "proposed change" (your words,
not mine) if it was always going to happen? Right from the jump, the initial
post on the forum received backlash to the proposal, and this was 2 weeks before
any intervention from YouTubers (who may have had some of their facts wrong).
Why has there been no sign of reassessment in the face of the overwhelmingly
negative response? You use phrases like "the variants we are merging as part
of this current project" as if to say there never was a proposal - it was
always a certainty.
Why feign community involvement if it was always going to be irrelevant to your
decision? And why the rush to push this through? It doesn't take an expert
to see that the community and the admin are not seeing eye to eye on this matter
at all.
|
It is billed as a proposed change because based on the reaction, the whole project
could be scrapped at any time. This is why we put the idea out in public, first
to the Forum, and then to the larger group of active sellers.
We are aware this is a "hard sell" situation. It is very difficult to
remove something from the catalog and have people happy about it. Consequently,
a lot of work was done in preparation for this project, to make sure just the
right entries were targeted and for the correct reasons.
What we are looking for in the responses are details we missed when doing research
and angles we had not thought about before. But personally I have not seen much
of that. Most of the responses from the email didn't really bring anything
to the conversation other than a general sentiment of "variants are important
- don't get rid of them" which by the way is a sentiment I also strongly
hold. But that's not what this conversation is about.
There are already several parts in the project that are currently on hold, and
they may not make it through. The wait time we have built into this project isn't
just to allow sellers to add notes if they wish. It's to give time for dialogue
and some exploration.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 16:35 | | Subject: | Re: Merging piece varian is a BIG PROBLEM | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | It's not nearly as bad as it looks once you dig into the list.
I have 2 monitors. I opened the list on the right monitor and searched my inventory
on the left monitor. Did a copy and past from the list and used asterisks for
the searches. For example, for torsos with ribs I searched using "973p*"
and for the hinges I searched using "teeth". Then i just added the text
in each comments box I had ~ 175 lots and it took about 15 minutes. It's
easier if you use brickstore but I don't.
|
Thank you for sharing your experience!
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 19:14 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 223 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
|
I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.
Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?
Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.
|
We do have replatforming coming up soon and a better handling of variants is
definitely on the list of things we are looking to improve when it comes to core
catalog functionality.
Selectable variants (we have called this the Checkbox Solution internally) would
help in cases with medium level variants. We could implement this in both the
marketplace and the inventory system, at the very least.
However, there are many variants the catalog forces on the marketplace as a general
standard, and these are not optional. In the same way, there are many variants
that are so insignificant that BrickLink would never allow them to be distinguished
with a checkbox system.
So the answer is yes, in part.
But the variants we are merging as part of this current project would fall into
the last category. Maybe the "middle ground" could be expanded to include
them at some point, but from where I'm sitting now, I don't see that
happening.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 18:51 | | Subject: | Re: Variant merge - specific answers needed | | Viewed: | 98 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
Unfortunately the data linked to a catalog entry is dynamic in orders, so the
only thing that is recorded there is the number behind the number - the index
for that entry, which never changes.
So if a lot is purchased before the seller adds the note, the lot will show up
as a merged entry in the order if the catalog entry is merged.
|
Maybe it’s the hour (already tomorrow here ) but even with an idea of what
you’re trying to say, I’m not sure I understand.
So, an example:
1. Buyer orders variant A from store lot N and variant B from store lot M.
2. Seller doesn’t add the note.
3. Catalogue entries are merged.
4. Order shows two lines for the new part, from store lots N and M.
Right?
|
Yes.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 18:50 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 150 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
|
The "frosted" appearance is caused by increased roughness of the inner
surface of the brick. During moulding, bricks can stick on the wrong half of
the mould when the mould opens and cause problems with the release of those parts.
The rough surface adds friction and helps to prevent that.
In some cases, moulds started out with a smooth surface and the inner surface
was modified during maintenance later. In other cases, moulds were made with
that rough inner surface from the start.
As far as I know, the frosting was included in the catalog only because of the
visual appearance. Smooth transparent bricks often look better.
Images:
- Two versions of 3001 brick with mould number 214-2
- Inner surface of a broken "brittle blue" brick.
Both these bricks would look "frosted" if they were transparent.
|
Thank you for contributing these details to the conversation! Do we have your
permission to use the images in a Help article?
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 18:28 | | Subject: | Re: Variant merge - specific answers needed | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | | | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
|
Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. It's good to have more
of the specifics.
| |
| | What happens 3 months from now when a seller who's been away reopens his
shop and doesn't understand what happened? You simply cannot count on every
single member receiving, reading, and understanding the email message sent out.
Will they receive any Action Items within BrickLink to understand the changes?
|
All sellers who had logged in in the last 6 months were notified by email. As
you may recall, originally a seller's inventory would be completely deleted
after 6 months of inactivity. Now it's not of course, but if they wait a
year, the whole account gets anonymized.
So relative to that, I would say this is not a monumental thing for people who
happen to be inactive for a while. It will probably mean they will need to consolidate
a few lots in their store.
|
The results may not be monumental, but they may not understand what's going
on. If they've missed the one announcement, they are going to find a bunch
of duplicate lots. It's going to seem to them that a bunch of items are 'missing'
when they go to look for a merged variant. There's going to be confusion
and then many, many questions here in the Forum. (See sales tax / onsite payment
threads for an example of how long a miscommunication can exist.)
I think there should be a visible notification in the My Actions List similar
to the ## Lots Marked for Deletion. It should be a log of: Lots Affected by Merged
Variants. Sellers should be able to click on it and see every affected lot in
their shop.
|
I wish we were at the place where we could deploy something like that for occasional
use. The best I believe we will have to offer is an XML list which we are still
working on.
| | | | | | I wonder how much Catalog Credit will just vanish on Feb 15th. Credit for images,
items, inventories, ... all gone.
|
Merges don't touch any of that stuff. It's all retained, but it may not
be retained in the same format as before. For example, inventory change requests
will still show in the logs and in the Forum messages. It's just that in
the logs, it may look like an item was changed to the same item. But the Forum
saves it just as it is, with all the comments and supporting documentation.
|
I expect to lose plenty of Catalog Credit. (I don't really mind, I was just
making a point.) I added many of these 3626b and c heads and their images over
the years.
Last thing that you may have missed when I reposted my original list of questions:
What's to happen to lots in active open orders when this change occurs? If
a seller doesn't choose to make a note on every affected lot, it's possible
a buyer will have ordered one specific variant that is merged by the time the
seller goes to pull the part.
|
Unfortunately the data linked to a catalog entry is dynamic in orders, so the
only thing that is recorded there is the number behind the number - the index
for that entry, which never changes.
So if a lot is purchased before the seller adds the note, the lot will show up
as a merged entry in the order if the catalog entry is merged.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 17:05 | | Subject: | Re: Variant merge - specific answers needed | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | New question:
What's to happen to the number sequences of all the decorated parts?
|
They will need to be renumbered.
| | Do I understand correctly that
[p=3626b]
[p=3626c]
[p=28621]
are all to be one listing? Presumably 3626 something?
|
Yes, and yes.
| | Will the 210 Vented Stud heads currently in the catalog be renumbered into the
3626 series? Will there be a Change Log entry to document this change?
|
Yes. All "vented" and "blocked open" descriptors everywhere will
disappear. We will not distinguish them.
Even though it will take longer to run everything through the public change log
system, I will do it for the sake of transparency.
|
If I understand correctly, as of now, the 4 digits on 3626bpb**** and 3626cpb****
don't collide am I right? (Except when they are variants of the same head.)
So that would mean that the 4 digits will stay the same, which would be handy.
I mean:
3626cpb0909 will become 3626pb909 (3626bpb0909 doesn't exist)
3626cpb0912 and 3626bpb0912 will both merge into 3626pb0912
|
Yes, that is the idea. The aim is to be practical!
| | For the 28621pb**** the 4 digits will have to change, right?
|
We will need new numbers for them, just as if we had never distinguished them.
But all the old part numbers will be retained as alternates.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variant merge - specific answers needed | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | New question:
What's to happen to the number sequences of all the decorated parts?
|
They will need to be renumbered.
| | Do I understand correctly that
[p=3626b]
[p=3626c]
[p=28621]
are all to be one listing? Presumably 3626 something?
|
Yes, and yes.
| | Will the 210 Vented Stud heads currently in the catalog be renumbered into the
3626 series? Will there be a Change Log entry to document this change?
|
Yes. All "vented" and "blocked open" descriptors everywhere will
disappear. We will not distinguish them.
Even though it will take longer to run everything through the public change log
system, I will do it for the sake of transparency.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 118 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
So, you merge the seat variants but keep
and
At least I think it's a similar thing.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
I hope they don't merge this one. Very important difference for those of
us restoring older sets.
|
We're not merging that one. There is no impetus to alter things that are
on the periphery. Those types of items are completely in the realm of the collector.
If you notice, all the items in this merge proposal are basic parts, central
to the building process.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variant merge - specific answers needed | | Viewed: | 269 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Regardless of my thoughts toward losing some valuable variants in our Catalog,
I have now read the message twice, and read most of the main Forum thread, and
I still have no idea how technically this is going to work.
You are going to take two active catalog items, 3747b and 3747a for example,
choose a main Image, choose one Image for each of the color thumbnails, choose
1 Price Guide (or does this merge also), and add a new Note explaining the 2
different versions. Is an experienced Catalog Expert going to do this or someone
else? Will the deleted info be archived in case of errors?
|
| | Then, you are going to merge the two items in the Catalog.
|
I will do all of these changes myself. There are too many steps to mention here,
but here is a list of the results:
1) In our current system, no images are ever lost. They may be moved to a place
where users can't see the credit, but they will be there in the system. Any
valuable image with historic information will be retained as visible.
2) The price guide is merged. We don't lose the specifics, but the prices
will all be listed under one entry.
3) Notes will be added manually to the catalog entry as needed. As you know,
we try to be careful not to get too carried away with catalog notes.
4) We will (and already have) archived most of the data. It won't necessarily
be in a format people can easily use, so that is why we are preparing Help pages
for some of the retired variants, to give an overview of the information.
| | Seller shop inventory
Seller's shop items will be merged unless they paste a specific string of
text on the entry ahead of time. If not, they will not get to choose which price
is used or any of the other lot data. They will not be given a log of exactly
what was merged or changed.
|
No lots will be merged. However, lots will be renumbered and renamed. That is
why, if you want to retain distinctions between lots, you will need to add a
note in the publicly viewable field.
| | It's not as if sellers are already prone to blaming BrickLink for errors
in their inventory. Now BrickLink will be actively changing their store listings.
We have no way of testing if this going to work and no way of flagging or logging
errors created.
|
We will not be changing sellers listings. In the case that sellers do NOT add
the desciption to their notes, they may wish to consolidate their lots. Of course,
this would only be necessary if the seller had listed under both versions of
a merged variant.
I've never seen an error stemming from a catalog merge. We do this all the
time and have had no reports of issues with stores. As one of the earliest functions
on BrickLink, it's among the safest we have.
| | Set Inventories
All Set Inventories that have these items will change to just one item. Any sets
that have the parts listed as Alternates will ?? Any Match ID's affected
will ?? Links to Change Requests discussing these items will ??
|
You'll end up seeing the same part in the Regular and Alternate sections,
and they will need to be adjusted manually, including all match IDs.
| | Everything else
All Wanted Lists that have these items listed will have the parts merged? What
if they are in separate projects? Isn't there an issue with Wanted Lists
already that involves problems with duplicate items?
|
This will produce an action item in the wanted list, similar to action items
in the Global Cart when an item price or availability has changed. We have performed
thousands of xref changes in the catalog (whcih produces the same condition in
the wanted list) and it has not been a significant issue.
| | All external links to one (or both) of the item variants will break or ??
|
We're going to be extra pedantic about moving retired item numbers to the
alternate item field so that no reference links are broken. However, macro tags
already in the Forum and message system may not work, and the download feature
I believe still does not include alternate IDs.
| | All the people who write related software will have to adjust, rewrite, debug,
and ??
|
Maybe. We never know what kind of impact this has on third parties, but will
be sending lists to our affiliates (Brickset and Rebrickable) and Brickstore
just in case. Most of the changes should be absorbed by normal processes, but
our concern here is volume. We will make the changes batch by batch, and not
all on the same day.
| |
To sum up:
There is a reason it took so long to Mark Items for Deletion and then actually
delete them. It's to avoid all this trouble and uncertainty.
|
Nothing is ever really deleted from the catalog. Deletions are either:
a) the expunging of listings and related links plus a merge to a generic entry
like this one:
b) the retention of listings and related links plus a merge to a related item.
We do have the ability to simply remove things, but that has to be done on the
back end (no tools for that) and we reserve that method for big corrections,
like the removal of BrickArms items (and colors, and categories). We recently
used that method to correct the 402 Reddish Orange issue.
| | What happens 3 months from now when a seller who's been away reopens his
shop and doesn't understand what happened? You simply cannot count on every
single member receiving, reading, and understanding the email message sent out.
Will they receive any Action Items within BrickLink to understand the changes?
|
All sellers who had logged in in the last 6 months were notified by email. As
you may recall, originally a seller's inventory would be completely deleted
after 6 months of inactivity. Now it's not of course, but if they wait a
year, the whole account gets anonymized.
So relative to that, I would say this is not a monumental thing for people who
happen to be inactive for a while. It will probably mean they will need to consolidate
a few lots in their store.
| | I wonder how much Catalog Credit will just vanish on Feb 15th. Credit for images,
items, inventories, ... all gone.
|
Merges don't touch any of that stuff. It's all retained, but it may not
be retained in the same format as before. For example, inventory change requests
will still show in the logs and in the Forum messages. It's just that in
the logs, it may look like an item was changed to the same item. But the Forum
saves it just as it is, with all the comments and supporting documentation.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 04:25 | | Subject: | Re: Variants thread - admin only ...? | | Viewed: | 150 times | | Topic: | General | |
| In General, yorbrick writes:
| | It might be a good idea to have an admin only thread for responses about the
upcoming catalogue changes. That way, it won't get clogged up with loads
of people reproducing the entire first post and writing PLEASE DON’T or SOUNDS
GOOD at the bottom, making it easier to find the more important clarification,
explanation and update posts from Russell and/or other admins on the matter.
I know a new thread has recently appeared but it appears to be open to replies
and so expecting nobody to reply to it is a long shot.
|
I think most people bouncing in from the email will still go to the old thread,
leaving this new thread for those who want to go over the details a bit more.
We'll see. But I put a link in the new thread that lists all of my posts
on this subject, so people should be able to use it as a filter.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 02:57 | | Subject: | Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 1951 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello again everyone,
My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,
which is right about the level of the BrickArms threads a few years ago. 
A New Thread
So I'm starting a new thread with some new information, and hopefully a few
links that will help you navigate through this complex discussion topic.
Here is the original post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447090
Here are three Help topics:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2625
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
Here is a list of my replies on this subject:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=variants&qS=Y&msgID=&uName=admin_russell&ID=&status=&v=c&max=50
If you don't wish to read all 700 replies in the previous thread, you can
at least look through some of these for answers to most of the questions that
have been raised.
************************************
The Responses
We sent an email out to all active sellers a couple days ago and we expected
a flood of responses in the Forum. As much as it may seem to be an overwhelming
response, we do appreciate all the members who have posted and shared their feelings
about this project. Keep them coming.
So far I have seen two YouTube videos addressing this issue, and I'll post
in this new thread to respond directly (and completely) to what they are saying.
I will be answering directly several of the more detailed replies over the next
day or two in an effort to clear up any misunderstandings.
************************************
The Research
The following is an example of the some of the research that has been done to
help determine the course of action we are taking.
When it comes to Frosted Bricks, we took a look at the price guide, the inventories
that contained these special bricks, and we studied the nature of the bricks,
at least as far as we could.
What we found was that bricks listed under the normal (umbrella) entries sold
on average for over twice the price, and the volume of sales was 17 times of
bricks listed under the frosted entries. In addition, sellers listing under the
main entries didn’t have to spend the time sorting out their parts. So from a
marketplace standpoint, these frosted entries are simply an inefficiency (see
image below).
In the inventories, there was only spotty information about which sets these
bricks are in. This is likely the main reason for the lower sales volume, because
the BrickLink inventory system drives sales for vintage parts. We started adding
frosted entries to the catalog over 20 years ago, but they are only reflected
in 24 inventories to date.
When it comes to the bricks themselves, there were actually more variants than
what are currently shown on BrickLink. And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.
In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.
But perhaps the best reason for removing these entries is the lack of a real
use case for any of our members. For new users, these entries clutter up important
basic parts categories, and if they end up on a wanted list, they can certainly
cause problems.
For the seller who wants to fill out vintage sets, these entries do not solve
their need completely, because there are serious color matching issues with older
transparent parts. It is not “plug and play” with these variants, and truth be
told, it would be easier to obtain the necessary selection of parts by using
the main entries.
For the hard core collector looking for information, BrickLink has very little
to offer in the case of the frosted bricks. We don’t need separate entries to
add representative photos and comparison images of variants, and we were likely
to never complete the “collection” of these entries due to the large number of
different patterns.
In order to preserve what knowledge we have, we plan to release new Help pages
for certain variants covered in this project. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 178 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
We could do a half-way job and just leave the part numbers to posterity, but
I believe we will complete the task and make the changes. Not all at once, though.
These will likely be changed over a period of 2 weeks between Feb 1 and Feb 15.
|
the email says
"On February 15, 2024, the BrickLink catalog will start making some changes"
but now you are saying starting on feb 1 so which is it?
|
I will post about this later at the start of a new thread, but the 11th part
of this project involving the tiles will be commenced on February 1 because it
doesn't involve sellers adding notes. We could do it today, actually, but
there are plenty of other things to do in the meantime, including making an XML
list for sellers.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:09 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 170 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, _Nadiki_ writes:
| | Well since a lot of BrickLink users are talking about this I feel I should throw
my two cents in as well. I primarily use BrickLink for buying and research and
consider the catalogue to be invaluable.
I'll go point by point over each group planned to be consolidated, state
what I understand to be happening based on your statements/community interpretation/etc
and give my thoughts on it.
1. Frosted Bricks
I'm guessing these are being merged with regular bricks with bottom tubes.
This might be a good change, bricks with tubes and bricks without (newer transparent
bricks) already have separate entries and frosted pieces have always been a variant
thing that causes confusion. However if this is something that people are really
passionate about, maybe a "frosted transparent clear" color could be
added for these parts.
2. Smooth Slopes
As I understand it, smooth slopes will be merged with their rough counterparts.
This is a bad merging, as smooth slopes are completely different aesthetically
and are typically more rare. Consolidating them with rough slopes would make
it much harder for buyers to search for seller listings that sell specifically
smooth slopes and be an annoyance to buyers that might receive a mix of smooth
and rough slopes.
3. Connections Between Studs
I'm not entirely sure which way these parts are being merged. If 3747b and
2752 are being merged, this is okay. However merging 3747b and 3747a is not a
good idea because they have different angles due to the thickness of the top
ridge being different. (3747a has a thicker ridge and a shallower slope than
both the other variants.) I don't know what the other 2 entries being affected
are, but presumably it's fine.
4. Sprue Marks
This one's really easy to understand thankfully: the chair with sprue mark
and chair without are being merged. Which is not a good merging. Many people
seek out the chairs without sprues specifically, and having to check for seller
descriptions (which they do not often provide) or hoping they get lucky with
their order is highly inconvenient.
5. Torsos with Ribs
Presumably the classic torsos without ribs are being merged with the reissues
that have them. This a very, very bad merging. Old torsos from Classic Space,
Castle, Pirates, etc. should be kept distinct from their modern reissues due
to the major difference in print quality/durability and the old torsos' extreme
value to collectors, particularly when in mint condition.
6. Inside Supports
There's a lot of entries for this one but not many parts with side supports,
so I'm guessing 1x2 axle bricks and panels with inside supports are getting
merged with their non-support counterparts. This is a good change for the axle
bricks, as there's almost no difference with the non-support version, but
this is a bad change for the panels, as they are completely different inside
due to the support jutting out. You can't make a smooth inner wall nor can
you put old stickers inside of the panels with inside supports.
7. X-Shaped Axle Holes
All bricks with x-shaped axle holes will be merged with their + shaped counterparts.
While technically interchangeable, this is not a good merging due to the clear
aesthetic differences and color exclusives.
8. Hinges with Teeth
There was some misinformation about this one, the 7 teeth and 9 teeth variants
have the same range of motion due to the special bump on the 7 tooth joint. So
functionally identical parts will be merged. Considering the number of entries
and the tiny teeth this is probably a good change honestly. However it might
be good to add a footnote to these entries that the 9 teeth variant is the older
one used up until around 2020.
9. Duplo Bricks with Bottom Tubes
It's Duplo. It's probably fine.
10. Blocked and Vented Studs
Presumably all blocked and vented variants of parts and minifigure heads will
be merged together. This is an excellent and understandable change when it comes
to the printed minifigure heads, as the catalogue was getting very bloated with
all the variants of minifigure heads and it made it extremely hard to search
the database for face prints when certain ones would show up several times.
However, this is NOT a good change when it comes to parts like the 2x2 dome piece
or blank minifigure heads. The vented studs and blocked studs look very different
aesthetically and when those studs aren't covered up they do not look good
next to each other. Differentiating these as a buyer would be awful.
11. Determined Entries for Very Common Parts
There was a lot of confusion surrounding this one, many people thought the old
and rare ungrooved parts were going to be merged with grooved parts. But instead
the "with groove" addendum is being removed from modern parts and the
"without groove" moniker will remain on its respective entries. This
is an excellent change!
Please do not disregard your users' fears simply because they are misinformed
about a few of these mergings. It's not easily apparent from the Help post
which entries are merging with what. These people are passionate about Lego and
treasure BOTH the excellent database and fantastic marketplace you provide.
If I may offer a suggestion: it would be immensely helpful to everyone if you
guys created a variant dropdown menu for parts similar to how it currently works
with color. It would streamline things so much for everyone - buyers, sellers,
and database users alike - and not lead to such extreme database bloat as Lego
creates more and more variants in the future.
|
Thanks for the detailed post!
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 18:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 127 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, misbi writes:
| | If tiles 3068b, 3069b and 3070b are to be renumbered with the 'b' suffix
removed, how will this affect decorated versions of those tiles? Are all of
the decorated tiles also going to be renumbered with the corresponding 'b'
removed?
Hopefully not 🙄
|
We could do a half-way job and just leave the part numbers to posterity, but
I believe we will complete the task and make the changes. Not all at once, though.
These will likely be changed over a period of 2 weeks between Feb 1 and Feb 15.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 126 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, icm writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
My knowledge of set instructions isn't comprehensive for that. I know I've
done it in my own MOCs and I know that configuration of inside supports has been
used on many other parts to enable their use as jumpers.
|
Can you try this experience with some real bricks and take a photo for us?
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 17:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 126 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, icm writes:
| | The inside supports, as on part 32064c, are critical for function. They allow
the part to be used as a jumper and on jumpers. This is not a trivial mold change!
It radically changes the functionality of the part!
|
Can you provide one illustration of an official LEGO model that uses this building
technique with a 32064?
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 00:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 212 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | I think the lack of response to the backlash shows exactly how much Bricklink
values its userbase (very highly, in fact they are so ashamed that they can't
even come up with a response... maybe we owe them an apology?)
|
Tomorrow I'll address the YouTube videos that seem to be contributing to
this thread.
For now, I'll just mention that most of what is being objected to isn't
part of the project. If you're looking to have influence in this discussion,
please take the time to learn what is actually being proposed.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 308 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | I think so too.
For those of you who think this is a good idea, or just don’t care, PLEASE, please
watch this video…
……………All the way to the end please. (Analogies will be given near the end that
may change your mind.)
https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=6vFtxIXqXiQNxz_m
|
I have watched that video and there are several corrections that need to be made.
First, the new date is Feb 15 for sellers to add notes.
Second, we are NOT merging the ungrooved tile:
which is found in this set:
In fact, we are not merging ANY tiles.
Third, regarding the Grill Tile, it is likely that later versions of that 1990
set did have the grooved tile, especially in the common color of red (see image
below). The BrickLink system is not complete in its representation of variants,
so it may give a false sense of correctness for vintage parts.
So for those of you wanting to complete old sets with the correct variants, please
be aware that this is not completely possible due to limitations of the data
that BrickLink has absorbed over the years, and also because many, many variants
are not distinguished.
Collectors usually have general timelines in their head that are often more useful
than BrickLink inventories for this purpose.
In general, I agree with the sentiment of this video, even if I have been correcting
some of the details. But BrickLink is NOT removing all variants from the catalog.
Variants are a critical aspect of BrickLink and we realize the importance they
bring.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2024 11:17 | | Subject: | Re: how did this store get reinstated?? | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | General | |
| In General, garyjerry writes:
| | https://store.bricklink.com/TabithaBricks?sID=3121567&itemID=384743651#/shop
complete and total scammer, lots of NSS completed and the store was suspended
and closed. bricklink even emailed buyers directly to tell them it was a scam.
just super surprised to see the store reinstated. just look at that feedback
(!!) I know several people in my facebook group who got scammed by this store.
|
The original owners were given access to their account yesterday to start the
recovery process. All the fraud feedback will be removed and the orders canceled.
There is a block on the store now that prevents buyere from checking out.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2024 23:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 2-8 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, macalex72 writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 3853mi White Minitalia Window 1 x 4 x 3 with 12 Panes
Comments from Submitter:
no evidence of presence of the White Minitalia Window 1 x 4 x 3 with 12 Panes. despite : confirmed accuracy of this inventory on Oct 6, 2010. (source: Set Box/Picture) on the box and following the istruction you can see only the 4 "Window 1 x 6 x 3 Panorama with 12 Panes".
|
We did extensive work on the early Minitalia sets and determined these pieces
were included as regular items in each copy of 2-8. The evidence we had included
all original sets that had never been mixed.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2024 23:10 | | Subject: | Re: Inconsistency in title names - part 30350bpb* | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, gunga writes:
| | Thanks for heads up, Randy. I didn't know there was a split coming for the
part.
|
The split was actually featured in the most recent Catalog newsletter. Not sure
if you have subscribed to these.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2024 23:08 | | Subject: | Re: Some Catalog Changes Happened Already... | | Viewed: | 102 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
| In Announce, rainbowmist writes:
| | In Announce, randyf writes:
| | In Announce, rainbowmist writes:
| | In Announce, Familybuild writes:
| | what changes are u talking about?
kind regards
|
The bricks with frosted lines are the normal brick code.
|
Nothing is supposed to occur until February 1 at the earliest, and all sellers
are supposed to be notified through email communication before anything happens.
Also, the catalog change logs would show part merges that occurred, and none
have occurred with any of the variants that have been discussed recently.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?nID=&viewDate=Y&viewType=E&viewStatus=A&viewAction=M
What exactly are you looking at?
Cheers,
Randy
|
In my store inventory the bricks with lines changed to 3004, 3005, 3008, 3010,
and 3001old with notes about the lines. I did not delete the variants.
|
It looks like you added new lots to your store on Jan 19th, with the exception
of 2 lots of slopes that are still under the frosted entries.
We haven't changed anything yet, and we're not planning on adding notes
to anyone's listings. That is up to each seller.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 19, 2024 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 160 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, atkk writes:
| | Will the comment be added automatically, or do we have to do it to each one (if
we want)?
|
I think no... If you want the comments you would need to put them yourself.
|
Yes, this is something each seller will need to do manually.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2024 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 190 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I can definitely see the advantage of getting rid of variants that are not really
important such as the interior type "connections between studs", sprue
marks and similar. Even the 7 vs 9 teeth, as they give the same functional angles.
However, the grooved vs no groove tiles are visually quite different from the
side. That difference really shows if you have more than one next to each other
and that is how they are often used when building. Same thing with smooth slopes.
Do they just get put into the regular slopes now, as again there is a clear visual
difference between the two and again slopes tend to get placed next to each other
when building. Whereas differences inside the parts tend not to get noticed anywhere
near as much as the exterior surface differences. Even the 7 vs 9 tooth hinge
differences tend not to show when looking at a build.
|
Smooth slopes are very sparse in inventories, and even though we know there was
a part number dedicated to the "smooth" slope in certain cases, in other
cases we don't know if there was a difference intended, or whether the molds
were simply wearing out over time.
Because of the variability of smoothness, it's hard to tell sometimes whether
a set really had true smooth slopes, or whether the listings are accurate. And
there is nothing to prevent a seller from listing a smooth slope under the regular
entry either, especially during partout, because the non-smooth entries do not
specify they are not smooth.
| | I also worry about vintage vs new/reissue torsos where the same print has been
used where there are large price differences, even if sellers can highlight they
have the original in the text.
|
So I went and pulled all the meaningful price data for the classic vs reissue
torsos. The classic torsos were more expensive, but only by about 5% average.
Inidividually, they could go either way - but not to any extreme.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 18, 2024 16:09 | | Subject: | Re: 3626apb05 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rcarhart writes:
| | Does anyone know the story behind this item? It clearly exists, but is not attributed
to any sets. How/why would that happen?
|
This is something we plan to have fixed really soon. See the end of my reply
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447170
"By the way, for you early minifigure enthusiasts..."
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 23:34 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 201 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, atkk writes:
| | How will our inventories change with the merge?
For example, if I have the following:
10x 4079b Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 with Center Sprue Mark
and 5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
Will my inventory now be:
15x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
or will I have 2 separate entries
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
|
It will be 2 separate entries. And if you follow the Help page for adding comments:
10x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2 [with Center Sprue Mark]
5x 4079 Minifigure, Utensil Seat / Chair 2 x 2
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2024 17:27 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 182 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BensBrickstore writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
|
Russell,
Thank-you for deciding to flag this one for further discussion. I wish you would
flag all of them for further discussion. I do think some of the changes are warranted,
but the timeline is much too hasty. There are some changes I don't agree
with, stud variants on minifig heads being a big one.
It is also going to have quite an impact on 3rd party software that we use for
inventory management and syncing. There needs to be more time for those software
developers to adapt to the changes.
I want to spend some time adding notes to our affected listings. I don't
think I'm going to have enough time to do that in the next two weeks, due
to my current workload and catching up on bookkeeping and other tasks. It seems
like it would be much more difficult to add the notes after the changes, since
the items will already be merged, and I'd need to check each item to see
which version I originally had.
Please consider pushing out the date for when these changes will happen. Give
everyone more time!
|
Thanks for the message.
I have just finished a page that lists all the notes one would potentially need
to add to their listings:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629
We will be sending communication out about this to affected users very soon,
probably within the next day or two.
Unless you did not sort out these variants before correctly, you shouldn't
have to look at your parts to confirm the variant. Of course, that isn't
a bad thing to do every once in a while, but I have constructed this list to
save you having to check physical parts. You should just be able to copy and
paste from the Help Page. Even if a part ends up not getting merged, it doesn't
hurt to have a note confirming the variant type.
Regarding the timeline, I'll make a more definitive post (in a new thread)
closer to when the communication goes out. But from a practical sense, we're
not going to be able to change everything in one day anyway - some of the more
detailed situations may take months depending on what sort of images and other
research that may be needed.
We're basically ready to go with the first 2 (Frosted Bricks, Smooth Slopes)
and the last one (renaming and numbering 4 common elements) so those will likely
be completed right off the bat. And they don't really affect many users either.
The last one (and most of the second one) are not something that require any
action on anyone's part.
I'll take a look at extending the time, but I think we would simply extend
the time for some of them, depending on the issue. For issues that have no controversy,
we would want to get started right away.
For the software developers, we can send you lists of things that are supposed
to change. However, like I mentioned before, they are not likely to change all
at once, so I don't know if such a list will be of much help.
You certainly don't want to add the notes after the changes, because then
you really would need to examine all your parts physically and basically relist
that part of your stock.
Regarding the minifigure heads, this is one of the items that is very high priority
and not likely to be removed from the plan. The reason is because of the complications
that arise in the inventory system and the large number of printed patterns on
heads. But I'm willing to hear anyone out on why such a correction is not
a good idea.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 16, 2024 02:49 | | Subject: | Re: Store suspended | | Viewed: | 157 times | | Topic: | New Stores | |
| In New Stores, WanderBricks writes:
| | In New Stores, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In New Stores, WanderBricks writes:
| | Hello,
My store got 11th of January suspended, without reason.
I messaged Bricklink, but get no response.
I had about 22 orders, and shipped all on time, no negative feedback or anything
else.
I can't think of anything I broke any rules with.
I did log 5 minutes in on work in my account during the day I got suspended.
Could that have been the issue?
I don't know what to do, would really like to start selling again.
Also I have no acces to my inventory and locations now!!
Kind regards,
Stephan
|
Please go through New Seller Verification again. There are links on your selling
pages that will prompt you to take each step.
|
Hello, at the New Seller Verification all is complete except add inventory. But
when I click on that it goes to the page:Seller Privileges Revoked
Please Contact BrickLink for further action.
So I am not able to complete the New Seller Verification again.
Kind regards,
Stephan
|
There you go.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2024 19:06 | | Subject: | Re: Store suspended | | Viewed: | 209 times | | Topic: | New Stores | |
| In New Stores, WanderBricks writes:
| | Hello,
My store got 11th of January suspended, without reason.
I messaged Bricklink, but get no response.
I had about 22 orders, and shipped all on time, no negative feedback or anything
else.
I can't think of anything I broke any rules with.
I did log 5 minutes in on work in my account during the day I got suspended.
Could that have been the issue?
I don't know what to do, would really like to start selling again.
Also I have no acces to my inventory and locations now!!
Kind regards,
Stephan
|
Please go through New Seller Verification again. There are links on your selling
pages that will prompt you to take each step.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 15, 2024 18:59 | | Subject: | Re: Trying to post a subject line that is longer than 45 characters - I can! I have the power! OK now I remember how it's done | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Off Topic | |
| In Off Topic, peregrinator writes:
| | In Off Topic, peregrinator writes:
OK now I remember how it can be done
|
Folks, this may seem like a harmless activity, but we would rather not attract
attention to any loopholes in our system that bypass normal functionality. The
Forum doesn't look right with these huge titles anyway, so we would ask that
you not continue to do this.
Thanks for understanding.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2024 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 190 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | What is it about 32064c that is important to you?
|
I was originally mystified by what appeared to be a piece that was introduced
and then replaced by a different variant and then went back to the original.
(What the chairs have now done). Then Turez pointed out to me that it only appeared
that way because it had been improperly split. 32064 is an undetermined entry.
I think I may have mentioned the thousands of dollars. Also across several
years of my life. It was my next big long-running project after almost single-handedly
sorting out 70-some 2536.
I really thought you valued what I was doing. Seriously. I really did.
| | There is no functional difference,
|
You aren't correct.
|
Yes, there's technically a functional difference, but we don't distinguish
every last possible functional difference on BrickLink either. See the photo
below. This "build" would not be possible on plates from the 1970s and
1980s because the pins on the underside of plates were solid, not hollow.
So the difference needs to reach a practical level before the catalog splits
the variant. You are correct in saying that 32064 was never completely split,
and the reason for that was because the functional difference was not significant
enough.
In the case of this part:
[p=32064c]
[p=32064b]
the "b" abd "c" entries were simply added to facilitate the sales
of these items for those who wanted them. However, as is the case with many variants
on BrickLink that were semi split during the early years, the specific entry
was the least desirable entry - in other words, the one that people DIDN'T
want. The headlight brick was this way, and so is the current minifigure chair
with sprue.
So the functionality and cosmetic appeal of what we consider the standard 32064
are not assisted by the b and c entries, except that presumably some of the versions
people don't want are siphoned off the mainstream entry, making it more likely
one will find the standard version with the umbrella entry.
If the functionality and cosmetic appeal is that signficant, we really need an
entry like this:
Technic, Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole (+ Shape) and WITHOUT Inside Side Supports
Another practical consideration is to look at the use cases where people would
need such an entry. The axle brick is primarily a functional brick (part of the
Technic line), so the cosmetic considerations are at best secondary. But there
is no short supply of the standard part. So whether someone is looking for the
square (+) axle hole or the bottom without side supports, they can easily obtain
what they want. They are currently in production, literally pouring out of the
factory and available through every venue. This is a huge difference from what
used to be the case with the minifigure chair:
It is a fascinating thing when such variants come back into production, because
they effectively quell the vintage market for that part. Hard core collectors
will of course want the real originals with the various markings on them, etc.,
but the builder who simply wants nicer looking chairs will buy from the mainsteam
pipeline. And that is the reason we are merging that variant, because the use
case has mostly been handled.
The downside of splitting things is that you are effectively forcing sellers
to sort bins and bins of a common part for very little reason. Of course, the
situation will never be too serious, because when the work doesn't pay off,
sellers will simply refuse to sort the variant. But then we have a soggy market
where (strictly speaking) people aren't getting what they ordered.
We definitely appreciate the hard work of opening sealed sets and looking for
variants. This is one of BrickLink's major assets, and we don't want
that to stop. But we've got to be careful about detailed work in the catalog
that obligates the tens of thousands of sellers that need to make a profit to
keep their doors open. One variant isn't going to ruin it for anyone, but
collectively many such variants will put an unecessary burden on top of the painstaking
work required to run a BrickLink store at any level.
Nevertheless, and regardless of these arguments I am making, because of the complaints
about this variant, I am flagging it for further discussion - the same as the
torsos. Maybe we can come up with a better solution for these items.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, 1977_mauro writes:
| | The answer is simple for that Russell, the old sets have them, the new ones not.
Mauro
|
That is then classified as a historical variant. BrickLink only recognizes selected
historical variants, and the more common the part, the harder it is to justify
splitting the entry.
For this part, there are several other variants (see images attached below).
To truly find the correct "period" piece, you would need to include these
other variants as separate options in the catalog. That means adding them to
inventories, which is an enormous amount of work, and is seldom ever complete
because of transitions.
Then if you took that as a precedent, we would be adding many other historical
variants to the catalog, which is impractical.
I understand the argument of having an "early version" variant like the
3001old to separate out the older parts. But relatively speaking, this is a newer
part and it doesn't have the clutch issues and material issues that the 3001old
has.
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:26 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 146 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
|
I am not the king and I don't have the keys. But if I didn't very strongly
disagree concerning 32064c, I wouldn't have spent thousands of dollars tracking
them down for the last few years.
|
What is it about 32064c that is important to you? There is no functional difference,
and I've never seen one of them used so that the bottom of the brick is visible.
There are no transparent colors either.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 13:22 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
It is also extremely important to retain and update all comparison images. The
submitter's work should be lost in this process. Just adding an Additional
Note is insufficient as the image is more accurate and useful. (Especially for
non-English speakers.) Also, many members have Collapsed their Notes and never
see them.
The comparison images will be even more important going forward as, without distinctions
in the Catalog, many inexperienced members will pick up an odd mold and immediately
call: Fake.
I can just imagine it now: selling a rare 'Hollow' stud SW head, only
to be confronted by a buyer claiming it's fake due to the absence of the
LEGO logo and 'some weird triangle top'. Every single head that comes
in multiple variants needs to be publicly documented for this purpose.
What is going to happen if the Minifigure, Head image that is retained has an
inset showing its Stud variant? Buyers will assume that that is the correct version
going forward.
Which of these images will you choose, what happens to the other one, and what
happens to the inset?
* | | 3626bpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
* | | 3626cpb0748 Minifigure, Head Alien with SW Klatooinian Dark Green Facial Lines, Dark Bluish Gray Eye Shadow, and Sharp Teeth (Kithaba) Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
Thanks,
Jen
|
All images will be retained, especially the comparison images. In choosing the
primary image, we will likely just choose the one that looks the best. For the
example you gave above, I personally would be inclined to remove the inset image
from one of the images and use that one as the primary image, and then retain
both original images as alternates.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 01:51 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 131 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Blocked and vented will be merged to hollow. Here is a comparison:
Offically recognized stud types BEFORE:
Solid, blocked, hollow, vented, open
Offically recognized stud types AFTER:
Solid, hollow, open
|
From the list:
Blocked and vented studs will be merged
3626b Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Blocked Open Stud
28621 Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Vented Stud
553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
3262 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Vented Stud
30151a Brick, Round 2 x 2 x 1 2/3 Dome Top - Blocked Open Stud
-------------------------
3626b and 28621 will be merged to 3626c, leaves
- 3626(a) Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Solid Stud
alternate item number 30011(a)
- 3626(c) Minifigure, Head (Plain) - Hollow Stud
alternate item numbers 3274, 28621, 30011(c), 88475
But for the Dome Tops we now have:
- 553 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top (Undetermined Type)
- 553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open
Stud
- 553b Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
(alternate item number 30367b)
- 553c Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Hollow Stud
(alternate item numbers 18841, 30367, 40528)
- 3262 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Vented Stud
553a doesn't have a Bottom Axle Holder, yet it will be merged, but there's
nothing to merge to. After the merge we will only have Dome Tops with Bottom
Axle Holder:
- 553 Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top (Undetermined Type)
- 553b Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Blocked Open Stud
- 553c Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder - Hollow Stud
Although I would like to keep them all as separate entries, my guess is that
the intention is to merge 553b and 3262, NOT 553a which would leave us with
- 553 undetermined type (2000-2011), could be both remaining types, so should
stay
- 553a Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top without Bottom Axle Holder (1999-2005)
- 553? Brick, Round 2 x 2 Dome Top with Bottom Axle Holder (2008-2024)
Diana
|
You are correct. 553b will be merged, not 553a.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2024 01:43 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 143 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Can the solution to this issue really not wait for Bricklink to develop a proper
umbrella system in the catalog?
|
The removal of these variants is not related to the lack of a better system.
These variants are gone because we want them gone. They should never have been
added to the catalog in the first place. Other variants of greater importance
will be handled with a more advanced system when (or if) it is built.
| | Will all of my work be totally erased or will it still be recorded somewhere?
|
All inventory change requests are stored as text in the Forum and we preserve
those Forum posts forever. So even if an entry gets merged and loses its distinction
in the logs, the Forum will still preserve it along with any documentation submitted
with the change request, such as photos and testaments of opening sealed sets,
etc.
You can see one of the remnants of the Headlight Brick with Slot in this change
request:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1016584
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 15:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 159 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
Are notes searchable in any way? Because I don't know them to be. This is
kind of moot if you're asking for us to manually look through potentially
hundreds of shops.
|
Yes, they are searchable:
https://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp?utm_content=subnav
|
No, they are NOT searchable by absence of a standard.
Since you are proposing to move structured catalog information into an unstructured
comments field you are in reality removing the practical ways to list and find
parts.
Russell, I am impressed by how much effort and motivation you put into this idea
and into the involvement with this thread, but am very disappointed that you
don't actually listen to what is being said by most of the most seasoned
forum contributors, which is: (1) Yes, how the site handles variants needs to
be tackled, but also (2) No, merging specific parts is not the way to go.
Please let the developers have a look at the technical suggestions made in this
thread before you degrade the catalog.
|
It depends on the variant. Personally, I would rather people NOT continue to
separate these variants after the merge. But as a concession, they can use the
notes for a certain degree of visibility.
I have read everything in this thread and I've read the whole BrickLink forum
for the last 15 years - pretty much every last post, especially for catalog related
subjects. In this thread I haven't seen any new arguments on either side.
I don't want a technical solution where everybody chooses for themselves
the variants that are important to them. We can have a middle ground for certain
kinds of variants where people have a choice, but as a platform we need to move
forward together. The "BrickLink Way" means we care about functional
variants and cosmetic appeal, and everybody needs to agree with this.
Historical variants are fine as long as they don't disrupt the mainstream,
and that is the essence of what is being corrected here. For example, there is
nothing fundamentally wrong with distinguishing a vented stud. But for parts
like the 2 x 2 Dome:
[p=3262]
it is a very common part and it's part of the mainstream group of basic elements.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:44 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | | |
They are not merging with Groove variants.
"Determined Entries for Very Common Parts - Ex. Part 3068b
Tile 2 x 2 with Groove
* This action will affect 4 entries in total. Limiters such as "with Groove"
will be removed from the Item Name. No entries will be merged / removed."
They are just simplifying item names that include reference to the groove since
it will now be considered the default.
~Jen
|
Every time we add a new patterned tile, we have to be aware of whether it's
a groove variant or not. It's kinda annoying actually to keep track of 'with
Groove' or not in so many item names, so I am glad this is going away.
|
Or, at least, that is what I hope this change is for. Maybe I've misread
it...
~Jen
|
Nope, you have it right!
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 119 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Looking at this list I may have been wrong about something and was hoping you
could clarify.
It says
“Blocked and vented studs will be merged”
So does that mean hollow and blocked are not being merged? I was under the impression
that vented, hollow, and blocked were all being merged which was very uncounted
but reading this again it sounds like only blocked and vented are being merged
|
Blocked and vented will be merged to hollow. Here is a comparison:
Offically recognized stud types BEFORE:
Solid, blocked, hollow, vented, open
Offically recognized stud types AFTER:
Solid, hollow, open
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 144 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | […]
Hmmm and also, I see that the proposed change of removing the "with groove"
entries is not in this list, so it seems incomplete. This is likely going to
result in us having to shut down the business for one or two days and figure
out what the damage is, I guess.
|
Russell clarified that 3068b and 3068a (and other tiles) won’t be merged: the
“With Groove” will be removed from 3068b and, IIUC, 3068b will become 3068.
Like we have 3001 and 3001old.
Don’t know if 3068a will become 3068old though, but the entry will be kept separate.
|
Aha, thanks for clearing that up, Jen and Sylvain. So, in that case that list
actually is complete (and potentially definitive). Good to know.
And @Jen I agree that removing specifications from the name that are very rarely
relevant (anymore) is a good thing. That sort of thing really does scare casual
buyers away as they can get overwhelmed and don't understand what elements
of the name/description are relevant to them. Bricklink is a lot to take in.
And removing "smooth" slopes is good too, I never acknowledged that as
a legitimate thing in the first place
Ok, seems the changes are not as dramatic as I feared at first. The amount of
duplicate lots this will produce will not be that numerous for most sellers.
But I do hope Russell will find some time before the deadline to clarify in that
list which exact item numbers are going to be removed and which ones will stay.
That way, once the change is made, sellers can spot their duplicates easily.
And I can make some adjustments to make sure the sync system here works correctly.
|
I finished the list this morning:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
For the Duplo bricks and the Blocked and Vented studs, there are just too many
to list at this time, but people can do a search for them in their stores.
We will need a full list to send out the notification next week though, so that
will be coming.
Concerning the removed vs changed, nothing will technically be removed from the
catalog. All items will be merged to a similar item and the lots in stores will
be preserved. In some cases, just the Item Name and Item Number will be adjusted,
and that may not require any text to be added to the comments section.
But the easiest thing would simply be to add notes to every listing on the list.
I have found it helps buyers have confidence that a variant is correct when a
note is present, even if the note simply duplicates the info in the Item Name.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 04:42 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 131 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 2. What if I really care about a certain variant that is going away? Can I
still buy and sell that variant?
Absolutely! You can add notes to your listings to make them as "determined"
as you wish. Buyers can still search within notes for extra details, or they
can simply observe them as they browse listings.
|
Are notes searchable in any way? Because I don't know them to be. This is
kind of moot if you're asking for us to manually look through potentially
hundreds of shops.
|
Yes, they are searchable:
https://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp?utm_content=subnav
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 00:47 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 123 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LMAinFLA writes:
| | Sorry if all this has been addressed already, but there were over 200 responses
when I found this thread and I didn't have the energy to plow through all
of them. So here are my questions and comments.
Was a focus group of buyers and/or sellers brought in on the decision making
process? If not, why? It would seem to me, as a former database engineer and
programmer, that any database loses a good part--if not all of--it's
usefulness if it doesn't serve the purposes of the end user. Also, adding
information about the item's attributes (as opposed to condition, completeness,
etc.) into a long text/memo field is not only additional work put on the sellers,
it slows downs queries and increases the amount of resources necessary to run
those queries, which in turn, slows down overall server response time. I really
don't see this as a win for anybody. Input should have been asked of sellers
and buyers to help determine at least a short list of variants that buyers find
are the most important.
|
I'm very confident that the decision to merge these variants will be appreciated
by the vast majority of the platform's users. We've worked with these
parts and these entries for years and have already taken in high levels of input
from the community in many different forms, including groups of buyers, sellers,
and builders.
| | While I can see that some of the variants might no longer need to be distinguished
from one another, there are going to be certain ones that AFoLs and sellers will
always want to be able to find easily in order to produce an accurate recreation
of classic sets. Plus the value of vintage pieces can vary widely in value from
their modern counterparts. Lumping such parts together would make the 6 mo average
sales data nearly (if not completely) useless.
Another point for consideration: how many buyers and sellers do you think might
abandon the platform for other venues where those distinctions are still available?
|
Pretty close to zero. We've had a few people leave who didn't like decisions
being made in the catalog, and that is unfortunate.
But when it comes to marketplaces for LEGO parts, BrickLink is mainstream, large,
and very comprehensive. I consider this correction of variants to be like pruning
a garden. The end result will be a more beautiful and useful environment. There
are still PLENTY of variants left to keep even the most ardent collectors busy.
And more will be added in the future!
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 11, 2024 00:29 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 206 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tmtomh writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Yes - that's precisely the point folks are trying to make. Different eras
of figures have different torsos, and that's important to a lot of collectors.
Almost every buyer who cares enough to even go online to buy classic space minifigure
torsos is looking for a particular type: they don't want to pay $5 for a
vintage torso with no prongs, only to receive the latest reissue from 2019, where
one can get the entire minifigure brand new for $3.
|
BrickLink has never recognized different torsos, except for a handful of reissue
torsos that have been recognized in recent years. The classic entries are all
umbrella entries that can stand for any variant of the torso.
That is what BrickLink is right now. If you want it to be something else, then
please understand that this would mean a change, and a much more severe change
than we are making here. Where would you obtain the data of which torsos came
in which sets? And how many virtually duplicate minifigures are you willing to
add to the catalog to reflect the torsos, the heads, the hands, and on and on?
| | If you must, merge the no-prong and short-prong class space torsos - but the
full-prong ones are from a completely different era.
|
There are no "no-prong" or "short prong" entries in the catalog
and there never were any.
| | It seems like the tail is wagging the dog here: the role of the database is to
document the full range of elements, and the role of the marketplace is to serve
demand for those elements, especially retired ones. Don't tell users they
can just work around it: the database exists precisely so they don't have
to "work around" it.
|
The role of BrickLink is to support the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers
(and builders) who do not care whether their minifigure torsos have inside ribs.
They need a practical, no-nonsense catalog that distinguishes the critical variants
and has an inventory system that is straightforward and easy to understand.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 16:17 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
is there any way to download all the blocked versus hollow head entries without
manually checking each and every part or something similar
|
I'm planning to give a list to sellers - maybe in XML format that can be
uploaded into a wanted list and then checked against the stock levels in a store.
More to come on this - I'm still working on the Help page list.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 160 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | I sympathize with people that are against but I personally support this idea,
which I think is long overdue.
Let's face it, most buyers don't care, and those few who care will get
their variant parts still.
In fact, and the beauty of this proposal is that, they will be more guaranteed
to get the correct variant than they are getting nowadays. So in my view
it's a win-win situation.
I hope that the list will go a little farther to include some examples:
Flat End/Top vs Round End/Top:
Grooves in hinges:
I have one question though: When 3747b and 3747a are merged, will they be merged
in my inventory as one single lot even when I have comments noting the correct
variation on 3747a, or will be the two lots separated still? And if they are
lumped in the same lot, what can I do to save the quantities of the rare variant
already confirmed?
Thank you BrickLink!
|
When catalog entries are merged, they do not combine lots in stores or wanted
lists. So separate lots will be retained with whichever note is attached. Only
the Item Name and Item Number of the item will change.
Regarding the other suggestions, we can look at those for later. But the flat
top versus round top is a functional difference and also a cosmetic difference
on handheld accessories. So there is little chance we would ever make a change
there.
The hinges with groove are there because we always distinguish groove as a rule.
But these were an exception to begin with because the groove didn't go all
the way around the part. The other issue with these is that the newest version
does NOT have the groove, which means the groove was not seen as an improvement
worth keeping.
But I would like to keep the discussion only on the 10 groups of parts identified
in the Help Page. One of the concerns for people on the collector side of the
argument is that these merges of minor variants may lead to merges of more significant
variants later on, maybe with some parts they really care about. There is no
need to spook people at this point over things that are likely not to happen.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2024 01:02 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
It is sufficient, will the list be complete before the two weeks start for sellers
to add notes and members who want to create their own database of removed variants
found in sets?
|
The list should be complete by tomorrow.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 20:08 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 142 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | though most of the language I'm hearing is trying
| | to minimize the effect that this will have on inventories, I believe that the
changes will make things significantly more difficult and frustrating for many
collectors.
Lastly, please recognize that for some of us sellers, these proposed changes
will directly hurt our bottom line. I've put a lot of time and money into
investing in certain variants that can be hard to find, and I have suppliers
that specifically search bulk for some of these soon-to-be-deleted variants,
which I pay a premium for. For example, over the years I've put a lot of
resources into having a huge stock of 4032b. It's been a best-selling part
for me for years, and if it's merged with 4032, all that time and money will
be wasted -- I know I can differentiate them with comments, but I also know
that my sales will drop drastically due to the part not being separated in set
inventories. Another example is part 553a. I don't know if that one's
going away, but I've invested a lot in having those verified parts, separate
from 553b and 553c, because buyers want them for certain old sets. Same for vintage
46212 in non-transparent colors. Same for certain blocked-open heads. Same for
3747a.
I estimate that these changes will cost me hundreds of dollars in sales every
month, not to mention all the work I've done in the past being negated. Please
understand that this is very, very frustrating and disheartening.
|
in addition to that, with blocked versus hollow heads. I've spent lots of
money to get say blocked instead of hollow for certain heads to get correct versions
so if they are combined I'm also out lots of money. if this change didn't
affect minifigure parts it would be much better. hollow versus blocked are iconic
to the point I even have label some storage drawers as such
|
If you already sort a particular variant, simply add the descriptor to your listing
notes for each item. You can still sell them even though they are not distinguished
in the catalog. No need to lose money.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
| | I read through this thread with great interest. Looks like there is some confusion
as to what the end result will be. Maybe you could make an addition to the Help
page that shows what the end result will be for the parts shown?
|
Yes, +1 on that.
I was already going to post a request that every single change be listed in advance
so that many of us can adjust our listings before the automatic changes mess
up our inventory systems. That way it'll only take a couple hours to fix
these entries, rather than a day or two of work.
|
Ok, I've started to build out the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626
Please let me know if this type of list is sufficient.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 18:21 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 149 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rylie_aitch writes:
| | As a builder, these differences are often genuinely functionally and aesthetically
relevant. I would hate to have to ask every time, or risk getting a random
mix if I need a bunch of the same type. Any smooth slopes would stick out like
a sore thumb in a roof full of the other type, for example, and I should be able
to decide which I'm ordering without having to wait for several sellers to
manually check their inventory and get back to me.
And as a collector/reseller, it's hard enough as it is to get period-appropriate
parts to complete vintage sets. The less BrickLink cares about differences, the
more likely old sets in general are to contain parts that any collector could
easily tell were made 30+ years later.
I add grooveless tiles to orders whenever I can, and have specifically been building
a collection of those. Removing that distinction would mean I spend less money
on this platform (and, again, I'd hate to need the grooved version for an
urgent MOC and end up with a mix of the two!)
|
I appreciate your honesty about how this will affect the collector market.
When it comes to smooth slopes, the main problem is that there is very little
evidence there are actually 2 intended types. For some, there were smooth versions
for special uses:
[p=30474pb06]
The only thing we'll do here ^^^ is remove "smooth" from the Item
Name.
[p=3684b]
For these ^^^ , they were only in 8 sets out of 269, and they are alternates,
meaning we are not sure these sets always had them. By all accounts, they are
very rare, and you are probably going to have more issues with normal slopes
that have a range of roughness to deal with.
I look at this part as simply a quality control issue, similar to brittle Blue,
cadmium Yellow, or the fragile Reddish Brown from a few years ago. You may not
get 100% usable parts in every order, and smooth slopes is one of those reasons.
For grooveless tiles, there will still be an entry for them, but the main entry
will not say "with Groove". For your purposes, the "a" entries
should be enough.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 17:55 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 149 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Dino writes:
| | This site is degenerating more and more into a random site. If you don't
care what part variants there are and where they were used, you might as well
use the inventory lists of the LEGO sets. That would be much quicker.
Then it won't make any difference what color a part is as long as it looks
similar to the original.
|
This is an unbelievably false claim. Our catalog admins are very fussy when it
comes to variants, and we go through an evaluation process every time there is
a new part number to see whether or not to accept the variant in the catalog.
In addition, we use a variant watchlist for new inventories to make sure we ask
the contributors to check the flagged parts from their sealed sets. This brings
our site very close to perfection when it comes to representing variants in inventories.
There has never been a time when BrickLink was this careful about these details.
I'm going to list out all affected parts in this transition so people know
exactly what is changing - and what isn't.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 17:01 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | This approach makes more sense, making the most common part nowadays an umbrella
without suffixes and modified names..
Please be sure to email all sellers that their inventory might have to be manually
consolidated after these changes.
|
Yes, an email to all affected sellers will be sent out.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 151 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | {snip] you can order a variant with near-perfect confidence that you’re getting what you ordered.
|
Please add "/s" when you post something sarcastic; some people may not
understand.
|
The only thing to be understood is that updating the catalog system is going
to disincentivize many buyers from spending money given the higher degree of
uncertainty. Luckily, I’ve just about finished ordering all of the replacement
parts I need. I guess I’d better make those last purchases before the end of
the month.
|
The 3068a will remain available for those who really wish them Without Groove.
And pray to receive them really without groove
|
I often use this page to illustrate how unreliable BrickLink listings can be:
The ungrooved tile only came in 6 colors. Where did the rest of these listings
come from? 22 of the colors are simply wrong, and likely a high percentage of
the "known" colors are wrong too if we went to buy them.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 197 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Hi,
I'm opposed to this. As one of the sellers who differentiates every part
carefully, I frequently get messages asking me to confirm which variant I'm
sending. Buyers do want period-accurate mold differences, including ones on that
list. I realize I could still list these differences in the comments, but the
problem is that they're presumably going to be removed from inventories,
so buyers and collectors won't know which sets are supposed to have which
variants.
|
In general, nothing will change. This is simply a correction of a few minor variants.
The vast majority of variants will remain untouched and supported fully as we
move forward.
When a merge happens, the resulting parts will still be in inventories. A variant
merge is actually a minimally disruptive process where the distinction between
the two items is lost. But the inventories, wanted lists, sales records and price
guide will be brought forward.
| | Before continuing, I would like some clarification on a few points, please.
1) For the tiles with/without groove, does this mean that 3068b 2x2 Tile With
Groove will become 3068 2x2 Tile, but that 3068a 2x2 Tile Without Groove will
still be an entry?
|
Yes.
| | Or will 3068a be deleted and merged?
|
No. For the 4 basic parts represented by the last example on the Help page, no
merges will take place, just a renaming and renumbering of the current "b"
variant.
| | 2) For Blocked and Vented studs, does this mean merging those two categories,
or does it mean merging Blocked, Vented, AND Hollow studs into one entry? Will
all non-solid stud minifig heads be considered the same? Or will Blocked/Vented
and Hollow still remain two separate entries?
|
All Blocked and Vented studs will be merged to Hollow, but we may or may not
retain the term "Hollow". In either case, the solid stud heads will remain
unchanged, but we will add them to more inventories and create more minifigures
to fill out the collection.
| | 3) If merging is happening to both X-shaped axle holes and Inside Side Supports,
does this mean that all 3 variants of 32064 will be considered the same part?
|
Yes. But for the record, the 32064 entry currently is an umbrella entry anyway.
If you just want the the modern version, there is no entry on BrickLink that
will guarantee that.
[p=32064b]
[p=32064c]
| | 4) Will the Inside Side Supports cause 2454 and 46212 to be merged?
|
46212 is the transparent version of 2454. There is no reason they should be split
and they will be merged.
[p=46212]
| | 5) What will happen to 1x2 jumper plates? Will 3794a, 3794b, and 15573 all be
merged into one entry? I think that's absolutely ridiculous if so, and I
would be very annoyed if I received 15573 in a used set from the '90s. Most
collectors would.
|
We're not even thinking of touching the jumpers. They are all considered
first class cosmetic variants. Even the stud holders on the 15573 are considered
cosmetic due to uses like:
| | Some of these entries I understand changing, like the Smooth Slopes. For others,
though, I think it is very irresponsible to collectors to change the inventory.
It's one thing to make 3068b the default 3068, for example, but a totally
different thing to eliminate the entry for 3068a and remove the differentiation
in set inventories. And that goes for most of these variants. The variants are
there so that collectors can have a more accurate set and buyers can find period-accurate
parts. Like I said, I receive a lot of these orders and I know how detail-oriented
Lego collectors can be.
|
In general, I agree. And in general, we aren't changing BrickLink's commitment
to variants. But I would ask, for example - what do you feel about the hinges
with teeth? Do you really think it matters?
It can only matter when someone is being super fussy about period variants, but
the reality is that BrickLink does not recognize most variants. Getting the exact
period element is not something BrickLink ever supported. Take, for example,
the solid and hollow pins on the bottom of 1 x X plates and bricks. This is actually
one of my favorites, and I very much appreciate the correct parts. But BrickLink
has never and likely will never distinguish to such a degree, because it's
impractical.
And the hinges with teeth are impractical. Academically they are interesting,
but they function exactly the same, and who uses hinges for cosmetic reasons?
The only use case is collectors wanting to fill out an old set, and we are so
very far from being able to provide that level of distinction on BrickLink.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 14:04 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 127 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Thankyou this does clarify it a little more (for reference similar to the 1x1
cone with and without grooved version in a recent forum post if I’m understanding
correctly) where the 1 version is made an umbrella category for multiple versions
but the old one still exists for the old version. (This is more understandable
for things like the tiles with and without grooves but still dosnt feel right
for minifigure parts)
|
That cone is something we need to fix. I plan to send out a notification and
then re-add the text "without groove" to the Item Name. That part is
not part of this group of changes, and is a different kind of groove anyway.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino writes:
| | This site is degenerating more and more into a random site. If you don't
care what part variants there are and where they were used, you might as well
use the inventory lists of the LEGO sets. That would be much quicker.
Then it won't make any difference what color a part is as long as it looks
similar to the original.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068a#T=P&C=11
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068b#T=P&C=11
6 months Sales, New.
Black Tile 2x2 WIHOUT groove, sold: 6
Black Tile 2x2 WIH groove, sold: 242531
The demand for this example of modern Tiles represents just... 99.997%
I think it's fine if BrickLink makes it easy for the VAST majority of the
market.
|
Would those 242531 people be just as happy receiving tiles without grooves?
|
Absolutely not. That's why there is a separate entry for the old school parts.
Sellers should NOT use the generic entry for the old parts. That is asking for
trouble. But we shouldn't have to spell out "with groove" for every
modern tile on the site.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 243 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
|
| |
For used parts, the ratio drops to about 99%. But I guess that is expected for
such an old part where the modern one dominates the market because of the relative
scarcity of the older ones. Mixing them means it becomes much harder to find
the old ones if you really want them. Sure sellers could note in the comments
that they have them, but how much more do they have to be worth for the seller
to sort them, store them and label them if there is an easy option of mixing
them? If two variants of a part have similar value, I imagine sellers won't
go to the effort of saying what they have. Then buyers will need to place many
orders (or ask lots of questions, many of which will go unanswered) to find the
part variant they want if they want less common variants.
|
Just to be clear, the last example on the Help page does NOT involve merging
/ deleting entries. It only means we rename and renumber 4 very common parts:
[p=3068b]
[p=3069b]
[p=3070b]
[p=3062b]
The phrases "with Groove" and "Open Stud" would be removed from
the Item Name, and the Item Number would drop the "b" suffix.
Folks, tiles with grooves are 50 years old now, and the round bricks with solid
stud are almost 45 years old. There is no reason to burden these entries with
terms like "groove".
This doesn't mean we will not recognize the groove / not groove on newer
parts like this:
Also, the spcific entries for the very old parts will remain as is:
These will NOT be merged.
The model we are following is that of other very common parts:
In theory, a seller could mix these under 3001 and it may create a problem. But
we haven't had complaints (in the last 15 years at least) of buyers ordering
3001 and getting 3001old.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2024 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 406 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I see in the list that there are some space torsos so does that mean
And
Would be merged?
|
Yes, unless it could otherwise be distinguished by the print alone.
| | Or am I misunderstanding. The old version of this torso is quite
difficult to get in good condition so it could get very difficult to find if
a buyer is looking for a true “classic” version of this torso as classic space
fans are “picky” (not in a bad way just didn’t know what other word to use)
about variants and similar
|
Point taken. A few other points, however:
1. You can still list whatever variant you wish using the notes field.
2. The catalog will still distinguish PRINTED variants of these same parts.
3. Because this variant involved minifigure inventories, it opens the door to
an unsustainable situation where every mold variant of every part on a minifigure
is recognized. To properly handle these in the BrickLink system, we would need
to add thousands (literally) of permutations of minifigures which are essentially
the same thing.
Take a look at this fan site for an excellent torso image:
https://62bricks.blog/2017/04/09/minifig-torso-types/
There are actually three types of torsos based on mold alone. Are we going to
then go through and try to figure out which minifigures had which mold? And then,
which sets had which minifigures? Remember that there were also different kinds
of heads, different helmets and different hands.
What we're doing with this is drawing the line with minifigure parts. If
it doesn't matter enough to make different versions of the minifigure for
each variant, we shouldn't distinguish the parts in the catalog.
4. Another point that is often overlooked is the situation the catalog and marketplace
finds itself in right at this moment. The "early" entry for these torsos
(which is the one you are saying is more highly sought after) is actually undetermined,
and you are not guaranteed to get the early type. ANY type of the torso can be
sold under the original umbrella entry.
To make it easier for the buyer and seller of early minifigure parts, we would
need to add a specific entry just for the early parts, and the main entry would
encompass "everything else, including the early parts". But that is not
what we currently have on BrickLink.
Add to that the uncertainty buyers have of getting the correct part when they
purchase. Personally I would not be sure it was the correct variant unless the
seller expressly mentioned it in the notes. So then we are back to using the
notes anyway.
By the way, for you early minifigure enthusiasts, there is an upside for you.
We will finally be able to completely reflect the solid stud head in the inventory
system. Solid stud vs hollow stud will still be a thing, and stronger than ever.
So we will distinguish the stud type for the earliest minifigures.
This effectively means that the following list of minifigure heads will finally
have a place in the inventory system:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=3626a*&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W
|
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
