BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, mfav writes:

Just thinking
it's smarter to fix the problem now before another gazillion images get posted
and end up in the wrong slot and then need to be "fixed".

Agreed and thank you for bringing it up. It could be human error since I approved
some of the images you mention. I'm sure Russell will shed some light on
the issue.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 17:23

Subject:

Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images?

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

It's all rather confusing, even to me, but I don't believe it is the
result of either human error or database corruption.

It has to be one or the other or both. It may occur in the underlying programming
which does whatever it does when an "old" image gets replaced (or bumped, or
set to primary, or whatever you call it) with a "new" image.

If my "new" "large" image replaced otherperson's "large" image...used to
be I'd get credit for "large" image. Now, in some circumstances which I cannot
define, my "new" image ends up being credited to the previous(?) large image
uploader. Or something.

There's not supposed to be either "large" or "small" image any more. Now
there's just "image" and where there used to be "small" and "large" there
is now "multiple"....at least that's how I understood the Great Image Declaration
from Russell some time back.

If my images are showing up in somebody else's register, and somebody else's
images are showing up in someotherbodyelse's register...well...that's
database corruption.

Maybe it's just programming, but something somewhere is awry. Just thinking
it's smarter to fix the problem now before another gazillion images get posted
and end up in the wrong slot and then need to be "fixed".

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 16:49

Subject:

Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images?

Viewed:

81 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

you are credited with the large image.

and the small image is credited to hazelsden.

Oops. Other way around. Confusing, as I said, even to me.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 16:45

Subject:

Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images?

Viewed:

96 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

I'm noticing my "large" images for these items are showing up as being credited
to other contributors.

Russell would indeed be the person to answer this, but in many cases it comes
down to the way the system is designed. On this, for example:

970c86pb02 Hips and Light Bluish Gray Legs with Chain Mail Pattern
Parts: Minifigure, Legs, Decorated

The legacy image is from hazelsden. The color image is from you. The color
image is shown as the primary image, which is why you are credited with the large
image. The legacy image also exists, which is why it is shown as an additional
image and the small image is credited to hazelsden.

It's all rather confusing, even to me, but I don't believe it is the
result of either human error or database corruption.

And I'm credited for these "small" images which aren't mine...and no
idea whose they are.

Those I cannot explain.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 16:33

Subject:

Admin Russell, what's with the images?

Viewed:

252 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

I'm noticing my "large" images for these items are showing up as being credited
to other contributors.

Kevin1990
- 970c00pb099
- 970c34pb01

swrbricks
- 970c10pb01
- 970c09pb01
- 970c11pb04

jennnifer
- 970c69pb01
- 970c00pb075
- 970c00pb195

Nikilyn
- 970c00pb337

hazelsden
- 970c86pb02

www_mybricks_de
- 970c00 (red)

And I'm credited for these "small" images which aren't mine...and no
idea whose they are.
air023
atl017
gen052
gen053
stu002
cty057
sw016
aqu011
lea005
sw049
twn029
pln100
pln003
pln050
pln057
pln058
pm012
soc034

(I thought the whole "small image" thing was kaput some time last year...no?)

If this is human error, that's one thing. If there are systemic issues or
database corruption or something else going on, then it probably should be looked
into before it gets worse.

Author:

runner.caller

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 16:27

Subject:

Re: Add weight as a search parameter.

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, robosushi writes:

Could the weight of an item be added as one of the search options? It would
really speed up finding unusual parts if I could just plug in the weight and
bring it up.

If the item is big enough for it's weight to be unique, I would think that
typically the element ID is molded somewhere on there large enough to see and
read without too much effort and type in to easily find with the search bar.

Author:

robosushi

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 15:46

Subject:

Add weight as a search parameter.

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]

Could the weight of an item be added as one of the search options? It would
really speed up finding unusual parts if I could just plug in the weight and
bring it up.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 15:21

Subject:

Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Dino1 writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

This one seems fairly pointless:

2654 Plate, Round 2 x 2 with Rounded Bottom (Boat Stud)
Parts: Plate, Round

"93791 found in Ninjago sets from 2011 in Black, Red and Dark Bluish Gray"

It does not seem pointless to me. If you want to complete a Ninjago spinner set
from the original era of Ninjago with all original parts, you will want the boat
stud that was made in China with item number 93791 and not item number 2654.

Cheers,
Randy

And why do you and others add "alternate" Numbers to parts, without naming the
sets?

Werner

Because most of them are in my opinion "generic" and do not have any significance
for me or my collection. This boat stud has a lot of significance for my Ninjago
collection, so I asked for the note to be added. If others want notes added to
other parts that are important to them, then they can request them just like
I did. No one is stopping you or anyone else from doing that. In the end though,
it is at the discretion of the Catalog Admins whether any notes get added.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 15:09

Subject:

Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

This one seems fairly pointless:

2654 Plate, Round 2 x 2 with Rounded Bottom (Boat Stud)
Parts: Plate, Round

"93791 found in Ninjago sets from 2011 in Black, Red and Dark Bluish Gray"

OK, but doesn't that hold for many part variations for older sets? These
parts look identical apart from the code number, don't they? Whereas there
are many variations of the good old 1x4 or 2x4 brick that don't get entries
or notes. There is no mention at all for the 1x4 brick, for example, that the
underneaths may have solid or holed rods, or cross supports, and so on.

So have the notes added to the parts you would like more information on just
like I had that note added to the boat stud back in the day. Easy peasy.

The item number 93791 on some boat studs is *very* specific to a certain time
and place of manufacture unlike the overwhelming majority of parts, and I thought
the information was beneficial to add before it got lost to the sands of time.

Getting rid of good knowledge for the sake of getting rid of it is unnecessary.
In fact, my general argument for BrickLink as a whole was always to get as much
information as possible into the system from the huge amount of LEGO knowledge
that frequents this site regularly.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

Dino

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 15:04

Subject:

Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

This one seems fairly pointless:

2654 Plate, Round 2 x 2 with Rounded Bottom (Boat Stud)
Parts: Plate, Round

"93791 found in Ninjago sets from 2011 in Black, Red and Dark Bluish Gray"

And why do you and others add "alternate" Numbers to parts, without naming the
sets?

Werner

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 14:52

Subject:

Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

This one seems fairly pointless:

2654 Plate, Round 2 x 2 with Rounded Bottom (Boat Stud)
Parts: Plate, Round

"93791 found in Ninjago sets from 2011 in Black, Red and Dark Bluish Gray"

Author:

elias3

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 14:39

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 60057-1

Viewed:

15 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

60057-1 (Inv) Camper Van
187 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2014
Sets: Town: City: Recreation

* Add 1 Minifig cty473a Orange Jacket with Hood over Light Blue Sweater, Blue Legs, Dark Orange Short Tousled Hair, Crooked Smile with Brown Dimple (Alternate) (Alternate) (match ID 2)
* Change 1 Minifig cty473 Orange Jacket with Hood over Light Blue Sweater, Blue Legs, Dark Orange Short Tousled Hair, Crooked Smile with Black Dimple {match ID 0 to 2}

Comments from Submitter:
the alternate MF

Author:

lego__LE

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 14:37

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4779-1

Viewed:

13 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests

In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:

In Inventories Requests, lego__LE writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

4779-1 (Inv) Defense Tower
62 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2005
Sets: DUPLO: Castle

* Change 1 Part Pearl Light Gray {51711pb01 Duplo Utensil Shield, Angled Triangle with Gold Lion and Crown Facing Right Pattern to 51711pb04 Duplo Utensil Shield, Angled Triangle with Yellow Lion and Crown Facing Left Pattern}

Comments from Submitter:
On the Lego homepage under service/replacementparts it shows this variant of the shield as part of the set. I will also upload a picture of the original box which shows the different parts.

This set was inventoried from "Sealed Set Contents" originally, so I am reluctant
to make changes to it unless we have really good reason to.

Unfortunately, parts lists on set boxes and the official LEGO replacement parts
service have been both found over the years to contain errors. Therefore, I do
not use either of them to make decisions unless they are taken in context with
some kind of information from real set contents.

As stated in a previous thread on these sets, I have found used sets with both
shields in them. Even though used sets are not the best evidence, they do show
that we need to be very careful about which shield (or shields) we put in each
inventory.

Until better evidence is found, changes to these shields in the sets they are
in will not be approved.

Cheers,
Randy

Sorry, it seems I had missed your last reply to the "shield dilemma". I will
just keep trying to find better evidence then.

Cheers,
Mario

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 14:30

Subject:

Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

This one seems fairly pointless:

2654 Plate, Round 2 x 2 with Rounded Bottom (Boat Stud)
Parts: Plate, Round

"93791 found in Ninjago sets from 2011 in Black, Red and Dark Bluish Gray"

Author:

Leut

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 14:30

Subject:

Re: Add HTML functionality to shipping message

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:

In Suggestions, Leut writes:

In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:

In Suggestions, Leut writes:

When I ship an order with a courier and I get a track-and-trace code, I also
add a URL to the message with which the buyer can easily keep an eye on the courier's
website and the status of the parcel.

This URL however can only be inserted as plain text and looks rather old school
and not quite professional as I would like to see. An image is attached to show
what I mean.

Is it a possibility there's some kind of HTML options added to the shipment
message with which we -the sellers- are able to create good looking messages?

If something like this already exists or if there are any other options I might
have overlooked, please do inform so.

Hi there - very strange

We add the tracking url to our drive through messages and it works fine.

This is the URL that we use, replacing the [TRACKING NUMBVER] field with the
Post Office tracking number.

http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/track?trackNumber=[TRACKING NUMBER]

That already looks better than mine.

But wouldn’t it be more nicer to mention the tracking number only in the drive
through message, and this tracking number is a hyperlink, on which the buyer
can click to get routed to the courier’s statuspage?

That above URL is pasted into our drive-thru messages with the appropriate number
in it (replacing the word tracking number) and over 5000 orders later we have
never had a problem other than they click on the link and the post office haven't
updated the information yet but that always goes away after a day or so.

Go to your postal service or courier web site and I am sure in their support
section they will have a list of the URL's to use with examples. That is
what we did

We still agree with you about smartening up the message capabilities so it can
be more of a marketing tool but at least you should be able to do this without
any problems.

I guess that’ll be the most easiest solution for the time being. I’ll look into
the default message section and add some standardized URL’s with the tracking
number then added by the system.

Thanks anyway for your input!

Author:

calsbricks

Posted:

Jan 2, 2019 13:33

Subject:

Re: Add HTML functionality to shipping message

Viewed:

27 times

Topic: