Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2024 22:40 | | Subject: | Re: + Tile/Plate, Round, Modified & ... Jumpers? | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
The clickable links for basic part categories on that page still go directly
to images stored in my personal BL profile. That's how far the site has
progressed (rather, failed to progress) in the three years since they got rid
of me.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2024 22:24 | | Subject: | Re: + Tile/Plate, Round, Modified & ... Jumpers? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, wyvern writes:
| | So why aren't these round tiles (among others) considered
modified as well?
|
Current and past catalog experts have had innovative ideas. Unfortunately, innovation
is not prioritized at BrickLink for a number of reasons which I prefer not to
discuss in this response.
To answer your point above, there is no valid reason why a Tile, Round, Modified
category could not or should not exist. And the same goes for other categories
you suggest.
| | I also wonder what the catalog's logic is for categorizing jumpers.
|
There is none. But I can say what the logic should be. It's actually incredibly
simple if you think about it at the simplest level. A plate has a stud:
A tile does not have a stud:
Therefore, the basic categorization logic for jumpers or any other contentious
part should be:
A plate has one or more studs, while a tile has no studs.
I believe this answers your remaining points about how parts should be categorized.
| | Anyway, to sum it up, I think the categorization logic needs better consistency.
|
Absolutely. The problem is that innovators do not thrive on BrickLink.
Most people (including yourself) want consistency. This is absolutely achievable
because it's not that difficult, but consistency will likely never happen
on BrickLink.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2024 23:05 | | Subject: | Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument? | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | General | |
| In General, infinibrix writes:
| | there are clearly members here using second accounts to strengthen the voice of their own opinion in the forum?
|
Buuuut . . . how clear is it really? Is your bias toward approval of the decision
causing you to make mildly outrageous and clearly unsupported claims, perhaps
augmented by your surprise at being significantly in the minority?
| | How is it possible that so many replies against the variant merge are from people
with barely any feedback yet they still appear to have the
highest/most complex level of understanding
|
You joined this website 11 years after me, yet you have nearly 10 times the feedback
I do. Does your higher level of feedback mean that your opinion is more meaningful
than mine?
Member SylvainLS, who is affiliated with the website itself as a forum moderator,
has a feedback score of merely 46, even though he joined in 2014. Another person
affiliated with the site as a catalog expert (Turez) has an even lower feedback
score of only 43 and he joined the site two years earlier in 2012.
Therefore, I can only assume you must be referring to really low feedback
scores. In fact, I have decided to assume you mean scores of 10 or fewer feedback.
I went through the entire list of replies to the main post and there were only
11 members with such a low feedback score (see analysis below).
So these are the 11 accounts you are accusing of being duplicates and asking
site administration to investigate, correct?
| | The way I see it, this change is . . . a no brainer from Bricklinks perspective!
|
And with this, you have made an extraordinarily perspicacious observation.
.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2024 21:12 | | Subject: | Adding to the Problem | | Viewed: | 268 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| 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.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2024 19:48 | | Subject: | Re: Proposed Alternative to Catalog Consolidation | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, PurpleKangaroo writes:
Yes, there certainly is.
| | and I believe the incredible Bricklink team has the opportunity
|
The opportunities do not lie with BrickLink any longer. They have squandered
the community's goodwill and trust for the last 15 years. The solution is
not BrickLink, but BrickLink's successor.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 18:26 | | Subject: | Next Part Variant Merges | | Viewed: | 283 times | | Topic: | General | |
| I would like to suggest these for the next round of part merges:
They seem like pretty useless distinctions.
I would also like to suggest something the site should have done before even
considering merging anything. The site should have made it quite
clear in writing in the catalog help pages what is an acceptable variant for
this website and what is not.
Otherwise, it's just up to the whim of whomever is deciding, which is no
way to run a business.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 20:27 | | Subject: | Re: Please remove photo | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, here4bricks614 writes:
| | The black-eyed variant
the white-eyed variant
|
There is no difference between these two.
All variants are the same.
Even if there is an imagined or supposed difference, it is unimportant.
You will forget about it.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2024 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 104 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | . |
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 08:34 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Indeed, the suggestion I was replying to clearly suggests that no new coding
would be needed
|
I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2024 07:26 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Undetermined doesn't help at all. It adds another catalogue entry to search.
If there is part Xa and Xb, and buyers don't care which they get then there
are two items to search or add to wants lists.
|
This is a misunderstanding of how a selectable variant system would work. In
such a system, the only entries in the catalog are undetermined entries.
So it reduces the total number of entries instead of adding to them.
The variants would be sub-entries attached to the undetermined entry. No variant
would receive its own catalog entry.
Such a system could be used to improve the catalog in several quite productive
ways unrelated to variants.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 22:46 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | a better handling of variants is definitely on the list of things we are looking to improve when it comes to core catalog functionality.
|
Thank you for the response. I do appreciate it.
| | However, there are many variants the catalog forces on the marketplace as a general
standard, and these are not optional.
|
Yep, that's the way things are now. But things do not have to be that way.
An undetermined variant is exactly that. Buy from a seller who doesn't distinguish
variants and you get what you get. This is just a confusion between how things
are now and how they could be.
| | there are many variants that are so insignificant that BrickLink would never allow them to be distinguished with a checkbox system.
|
That is a real problem. Here, again, the site is dictating the behavior of people
because it thinks it knows what's best. Would it take some work to design
a functional and easy-to-use catalog in which all possible variants could be
recognized? Sure it would.
But it is absolutely possible. BrickLink creating its own hierarchy of high,
medium, low, and non-recognized variants is the problem right now.
Why should an improved system have to inherit that critical flaw of this
website deciding which variants are important and which are not?
I have to return to my point that the site simply lacks long-term vision and
is pretty out of touch with its userbase. This does a real disservice to the
fan community who built the catalog and continue to contribute.
There is more to BrickLink than money and the marketplace.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 22:08 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BUC writes:
| | Instead of merging, why not bring back the "undetermined type" entries
for those who don't care about distinguishing variants?
|
That's what many of us would like to see. Russell answered your question
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450855
The short version: maybe they'd consider doing that in the future. But they
(the site) would still decide which variants can be included in the umbrella
entry. And none of the ones being merged now would be allowed.
So the future will be no better than the present. The website still thinks they
know what is best for their ignorant children (meaning us, the members). And
they will think that in the future, too, no matter if improvements happen or
not.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2024 20:17 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 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.
|
Yes, there was strong objection from members to adding BrickArms. But the site
added these items to the catalog anyway. Not too terribly long thereafter, the
site removed BrickArms products. It took a long time to clean up the mess, as
I recall.
I think there's some wise saying about learning from history, but I can't
remember just how it goes . . .
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 23:55 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, sampo writes:
| | If things go like this, I can only hope that somebody will "re-launch"
new bricklink that will slowly (maybe taking decades) collectively build again
place that can appreciate the variants and history of bricks.
|
This is absolutely the only way forward. It will just have to be done correctly
this time.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 20:09 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
I know whatever you have decided that I know.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2024 19:06 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We don’t base our decisions on polls
|
Clearly.
BrickLink is convinced that it knows what is best for members. That level of
arrogance and condescension will inevitably lead to irrelevance for this website.
BrickLink will not remain the community's database of choice forever, not
even with the backing of the LEGO Group. Many may laugh at those words now,
but time will prove me correct.
BrickLink will eventually join its peer group (LUGNET and Peeron) in the dustbin
of history, which is a shame. Things did not have to end this way.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 13:01 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | it has variants not catalogued) so buyers that don't care could save some bucks in the process.
|
There are many variants not yet cataloged. I began the process of documenting
them with this list several years ago:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelCat.asp?relID=24
All variants could be cataloged and documented properly with selectable
variants, which is another reason why this is clearly the correct solution to
the variant problem.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2024 11:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 26 | | Viewed: | 150 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| 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.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 21:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variant Merge | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
| In Announce, mwright5 writes:
| | I for one have found keeping up with all the variants to be
exhausting over the last 9 years
|
Variants are a real problem. No one disagrees with that. But smooshing
them together is no fix.
I agree with your position that variants are important. The "solution"
of getting rid of them is shortsighted and not a positive step forward for this
website.
The database should instead be redesigned with an effective solution for all
BrickLink users.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2024 13:37 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 928-1 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, MikkoKaukonen writes:
| | Instructions, pr photos and other inventories show the parts to be the solid stud versions.
|
Why are there two versions of this part on BrickLink? It is unnecessary to have
both solid stud and open stud versions of the part. These variants should be
merged into a single catalog entry for the sake of convenience.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
