BrickLink Discussion Forum

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.

I don't think you understand what arbitrary actually means. When something
is arbitrary, it follows *no* system, can seem random, and is by definition *not*
defined. BrickLink has a system that is largely defined by LEGO themselves. That
is not arbitrary. That is the exact meaning of a definition - trying to define
something and make it not random. I think we are trying to tighten up that definition,
which leads to being more defined and less arbitrary (or not arbitrary at all).

Randy

It is arbitrary because we only follow Lego up to a point, then we depart based
on BL's own arbitrarily-applied "rules." I give examples of where we call
a part a part because Lego does, but where we define parts that Lego does not.
There are also examples of where Lego defines a part but we do not.

And those decisions are not consistent over time - not because we have no rules,
but because the rules we do have are often subjective and not consistently applied.
There seems to be no disagreement about that, but I disagree that the solution
is to replace one subjective rule with another. It will have the effect of shortening
the inventories, but as I have argued elsewhere, that is not in the interest
of the users who want to identify, buy and sell these assemblies.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 11:28

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.

Isn't that what we are trying to do here?

No, you're wanting to change the definition of counterparts, not assemblies.

Doing that means we will potentially continue to have assembly entries added
that will not be included in inventories because there will be two decisions
based on different criteria.

Decision #1 is whether an assembly should be added to the catalog (made by the
cat admins) and decision #2 is whether that entry should be included in set inventories
as a counterpart (made by the inventory admins based on criteria under discussion
now).

Changing the rules for decision #2 does nothing to alter decision #1. I think
we should streamline the whole thing into one decision - if it's listed in
the parts catalog, it should be listed in inventories.

For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.

I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?

Randy

Frankly this question angers me. I've seen it many times as a defense against
making much needed changes to the catalog. Many of those changes have been made
despite this line of protest, thankfully, and over time the catalog has become
better because of it.

Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.

It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.

The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:

3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports
Parts: Brick

Today it is inventoried in almost 500 sets, thanks to your hard work (and Russell's
and Robert's and that of many others). That didn't happen overnight -
it was most recently added to an inventory a couple weeks ago - but it would
not have happened at all if we had decided that creating a useful and accurate
catalog was just too much work.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 11:22

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 10:39

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.

Isn't that what we are trying to do here?

I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?

Randy

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 09:38

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

35 times

Topic: