Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | mfav  | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
That's true if the stud size dimensions are accurate; but when something
is really 1 x 1.4 but is labeled 1 x 1...not so much.
|
 |
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:52 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | ... it makes little sense to have stud-size
dimensions for parts like this.
|
It makes no sense to have stud size dimensions for anything in the dimensions
field. Having some dimensions being mm and others being studs makes all of them
useless.
If there are stud size dimensions, relegate them to the description field until
such time as there is a database rethink. Populate the dimensions field...systematically...x,
y, z...in mm...and that ought to go some way towards sorting out the volume calculations
for shipping and whatnot, wouldn't it?
My two cents towards more fully developing roadmap #7.
Also, why are some things 1 x 2 and other things 2 x 1? That's confusing
as all get out.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
I cannot locate 10507 in the catalog. Please post a link.
|
Sorry, dyslexia kicking in
15070
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 13:53 | | Subject: | Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 136 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I've been thinking about part variants and I'm beginning to be of the
opinion that variants should only be considered for separate catalog entries
when absolutely necessary. There are no guidelines at the moment for part variant
splits, but we need them and we need to rethink part variants and how they're
handled in general.
|
There's a lot to consider.
1. should a piece be restricted to its original part number? If 3713 is superceded
by 6590, which is superceded by 42798, should those subsequent numbers become
official parts, or are you going to continue to collectively house all those
different flavors of the same part under a single number?
Note: http://v4ei.com/brickref/3713-variants.php
I don't know if those are all actually 3713, or by the time you get to the
fifth one if that's actually a 6590 or what, but...one one hand if you're
wanting to research and find the actual part (or as reasonably close to the actual
part) that came with a set, and you have the instructions, and the instructions
say 6590, then you want a 6590. On the other hand, if you're making a thing
with the grandkids, it really doesn't matter. There's a "continuum of
relevance" there that needs to be addressed.
2. http://v4ei.com/brickref/30104v69109.php
Those ought to go on the list to be split if they aren't already. 30104 and
69109 somewhere along the line are decidedly different parts. I don't know
if there's a 136mm 69109 or a 128mm 30104, but having one entry for items
with two different numbers and functional differences ought to be separated.
3. Whatever you decide to do with the variants, it's pretty clear to me that
they need to be investigated in greater detail to have sufficient understanding
of a part before being able to make an informed decision.
4. It would be nice if the points considered in making the decision were noted
on the parts' pages and all relevant parts are cross referenced with links.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 08:41 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I did note there would be pain associated with the proposal. Thus the question
mark in the title.
We’re finally getting three asp pages rewritten, so maybe the logjam on the dev
side is breaking. Lobby for a better underlying database structure. If you get
that, then cross site labeling issues become moot.
I’d like to see all the nonsense labeling of decorated parts go, too. That should
be an auto increment process handled by the database, not the arcane manual search
process with b p c x and whatever else gets thrown in there with the kitchen
sink.
Real improvement will look like pain for a while. In the end it is probably a
wash. You can have a big knife cut once, or ten paper cuts a day forever.
Certainly agree with the radical rethink. That also becomes a non issue with
a better underlying database.
I’m arguing for consistency in presentation and labeling at the moment, as those
things are achievable within the current structure.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 21:45 | | Subject: | Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 173 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| http://v4ei.com/brickref/4265-variants-proposal.html
I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
Then there's the issue of sometimes two things that are the similar have
two different catalog numbers and other times two things that are similar have
a single number and a note. So the whole handling of naming and suffixing is
kind of all over the place.
If that page isn't clear, hit me up.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2020 22:48 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9610-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| | | When I asked for it, my aunt looked down her nose at me and said. It is just
a store-bought print. It isn't valuable. She was hunting out jewelry and
her husband had brought a trailer to haul of power tools. I just said it was
valuable to me.
|
I got grandpa’s desk, because it was magic.
Later I discovered the desk wasn’t magic. The magic was in grandpa.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2020 22:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9610-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes
| | Did you get yours from your grandparents? I hear the story over and over. I
believe every house had one in the 60s.
|
No, sadly my grandparents couldn’t afford such luxuries.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2020 20:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9610-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, jakemoore writes:
Okay, so my webcam hasn’t been hacked. What a relief.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2020 19:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9610-1 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| | Where'd you get this picture? |
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 17, 2020 16:04 | | Subject: | Re: Alternate Images (Rant) | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | I agree with this also, but setting up a notification system is well beyond the
purview of CAs/IAs and requires action from the site's side. I simply don't
have time to individually notify 700,000+ people of changes because to do so
I would have to send exactly that many PMs. There is no system in place for
mass-notification, even though members have asked for it for a long time.
|
For pity's sake. Can't BrickLink afford a ConstantContact or MailChimp
account?
I know, you're not the person to ask.
This is a rhetorical question.
...and I'm a noisy forum user who will therefore be summarily ignored...
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 23:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4758-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mfav writes:
| | mfav thinks he'd like to see a wide shot of whateverthehell it is you're
doing for your "studio setup"...background, lights, camera, etc.
|
1 level up from cheapest tent on Amazon, ultra-bright LED bulbs, iPhone XR
| | mfav thinks you've got some awesome light temperature going on there, but
could use a diffuser
|
Isn't the tent a diffuser?
|
I couldn't say without seeing the setup. It could be a diffuser, but it needs
to be positioned correctly. I'm seeing hard white highlights on the tiger
figure which suggests hard direct light. Also seems the light is coming from
the sides, kind of backlit.
Phones are a pain because of the wide angle lens. You end up always having to
be between the light source and the object if you want to get a closeup. There
may be telephoto clip-on lenses that might help. Also a tripod/clamp/mount.
Also look into the Neural Cam app for iPhone.
Are you doing any postproduction with Photoshop or Gimp or something?
By the way, did I mention: The page cannot be displayed because an internal server
error has occurred.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 22:49 | | Subject: | Re: Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Unfortunately, single digits are thrown out of many of the search results.
|
Aren't you the fella to talk to to get that changed, Mister Site Manager?
| | But I think in general one would find more numerals in item names than the words
spelled out simply because it makes the name shorter.
|
While that is undoubtedly true, it's not particularly helpful in any way.
If you search, say, legs assemblies...
search for "three" you get two results
search for "3" you get: The following keywords were excluded from your search:
3
...however there are 13 entries containing "3"
Isn't the point of StormBluser's standardization plan to fix this stuff?
To paraphrase the StormBluser: why name something like this when 75% of the search
words are invalid?
Again, I'll make the point you need to distinguish between identification
and discovery. The identification of a thing is irrelevant if it can't be
discovered. People use the search box to find things, they don't browse 180,000
individual items looking for "3". Hope you get my drift.
Aren't you the number one proponent of making the catalog useful? Let's
figure out a way to make it useful.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 21:08 | | Subject: | Description standardization note | | Viewed: | 168 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| It would be good for consistency in the catalog description if all instances
of numbers were either integers or words, not arbitrarily some of each.
So:
Three eyeballs, Three earlobes
or
3 eyeballs, 3 earlobes
not
Three eyeballs, 3 earlobes
...that kind of thing.
There are pros and cons for each option. Please investigate how the search mechanism
works to see which option yields better results.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2020 18:18 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4758-1 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | mfav is welcomed to steel these pics.
|
mfav thinks he's not interested in the pics once they've gone through
the bricklink imagemangler
mfav thinks he'd like to see a wide shot of whateverthehell it is you're
doing for your "studio setup"...background, lights, camera, etc.
mfav thinks you've got some awesome light temperature going on there, but
could use a diffuser
mfav also thinks a bunch of other stuff, but is going to stop thinking now
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 21:10 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | I have about 98% of the Harry Potter sets if you want to use that for year of
change or verification on that hat. I'm willing to look at them and report
what I find.
|
I'm content to let the mad geniuses of catalog control sort out the catalog.
I'm just documenting the differences I can find in the handful of hats I
have.
Regardless of whatever else, the presence of the prong on some hats and the absence
on others I would think constitutes a different mold, and the supercollectors
may want to note the differences. But, again, I'm content to let the catmins
sort all that out.
If you want to get really crazy, the undersides of the brims also exhibit differences
under the magnifying glass. Some are smooth, some have a pebbled inner and outer
ring, some have an inner ring with parallel striations instead of pebbling, a
couple have a narrow band of striations in an otherwise smooth inner ring. The
subtleties are kind of endless.
For whatever it's worth, though, mine are:
Black 90460: fine pebbling overall
Black: smooth cone, pebbled brim, with prong,
Black: slightly pebbled cone, pebbled brim, with prong,
Blue, Purple, Green: slightly pebbled cone, definitely pebbled brim, with prong
Dark Green, Dark Green with dragon decoration: definitely pebbled cone and brim,
no prong
Tan: slightly pebbled cone, definitely pebbled brim, no prong
Light Purple: cone too beat up to tell if it's smooth or slightly pebbled,
definitely pebbled brim, with prong
The dark green ones and the 90460 are pretty much pristine; the others are old
and worn. Your mileage may vary.
My sample size is small, so additional data is probably warranted if the admins
want to try to make sense of it.
I just updated the hats page with closeups. Don't know if you saw that version
or the earlier no-closeups version.
My opinion otherwise though is that using renders instead of photographs for
the parts is misleading for the collector.
Did I mention: The page cannot be displayed because an internal server error
has occurred.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: February Roadmap Project: Old and New | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Sure! I'll play along...
I am not convinced that 90460 is really a new version of 6131.
|
I don't know which number to ascribe to which hat, but there are hat differences.
http://v4ei.com/brickref/wizard-hats.php
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2020 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: 30374 Bar 1x4 Frosted Variant | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
I have also third variant 28697 not frosted. It looks like 30374 but has new
number molded on it. Checked under very high magnification.
|
...and an unnumbered version...
pic updated.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2020 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: Identifying minifigures | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Help, Stonemonkey1974 writes:
Note "nougat/flesh" hasn't been updated since the apocalypse, and Anders
is away for a week.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2020 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: Nougats reference | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In General, randyf writes:
| | In General, mfav writes:
You forgot Light Nougat. 
|
Yup. Please let me know if this is now corrected to your satisfaction.
http://v4ei.com/brickref/
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2020 19:29 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb1788 Will Still Say Flesh | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, ratas writes:
| | I am a bit on both sides on this idea. In one way, having the variant first is
beneficial, but on the other hand, when the "base" version and variant come one
after other, having the variant later is better (imho). E.g.
Tile 1 x 2
Tile 1 x 2 grooved
To me, it is easier to spot the what is the common stuff and what changes when
they are shown like that.
|
The problem is with cognition:
Is this a Container or a Container Lid?
Container 1 x 2 x 3 Lid
...is it a 1 x 2 x 3 container or is it a 1 x 2 x 3 lid?
The tile example also would argue for a qualifier
Tile Ungrooved
Tile Grooved
Is Grooved the right qualifier? The 2412 Tile is grooved. The title doesn't
reflect that, but I'd suspect that "groove" would be an likely search term
for the uninitiated. So...back up and work on the glossary first?
Attempting this standardization...developing a schema to follow...should probably
take days if not weeks to sort out. If you download the catalog and look just
at the Container section...try to dissect that with a spreadsheet...put like
attributes into columns...you run into the weeds pretty quickly. And that's
an easy category.
And I'll once again emphasize that without substantive changes to the underlying
database structure, this is just rearranging the deck chairs.
If this work being done now is in anticipation of actually getting a better underlying
database sometime down the road, then start planning now and have the StormBluser
Schema anticipate the "to come" schema.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2020 19:10 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb1788 Will Still Say Flesh | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| I'd suggest, if you're going to "standardize" the conventions, please
remove all the withs, withouts, ands, ons, throughs and other useless terms.
Stick to nouns wherever possible. The desire to make the titles "human readable"
isn't always in keeping with good discovery practices. As you noted a little
while ago, why name something in such a way that 75% of the terms are useless.
Change sequencing to reflect a variant before the size:
Bad: Container 1 x 2 Lid
Good: Container Lid 1 x 2
Bad: Tile 1 x 2 with Groove
Good: Tile Grooved 1 x 2
Did I mention: The page cannot be displayed because an internal server error
has occurred.
I guess you're not in charge of that one, though.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
