Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | 62Bricks  | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Call it a rule that has been applied arbitrarily, then. And the method under
discussion is just as subject to random application because it is apparently
based on how difficult it is to separate the parts. Randy has already disagreed
with me on the relative difficulty of pulling the hinge plates apart compared
to the hinge bricks. That would be how we would be deciding whether a part is
inventoried or not?
Does that not seem absurd?
The comparison to minifigs is not merely general - it is exactly analogous. They
are both common assemblies of easily-separated parts that collectors, buyers
and sellers want to deal with both as a unit and as individual components. We
include minifigs in inventories, we should include assemblies, too.
That Lego sets have photos of the minifigs on the box is meaningless - as I say,
we depart from Lego all the time because the needs of the secondary market are
different. And besides, the fully-assembled counterparts are also pictured on
the box and that does not bless them into the inventory. And besides again, see
the subthread about the Cars characters, which are also named and appear on the
boxes but are not inventoried as figures or counterparts. So - Lego defining
an assembly does not mean that Bricklink does, and vice versa. I have
no problem with that, because as I say our needs are different.
And I think we may have lost sight of what the needs of the Bricklink user are.
When we start layering rules on top of one another for the ease of administrators
rather than the needs of the user, we are failing to learn from the past.
It would be much simpler to have one rule rather than two, and the place to apply
the rule is in the creation of assembly entries. If counterparts are threatening
to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
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.
|
 |
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 09:30 | | Subject: | Re: How many sets released ? | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, MiStErLu writes:
| | Hi,
On the first page of BrickLink i see 14 729 sets
When i download the set catalog to compare, i see 14 761 sets
Someone can explain me the difference ?
|
The number of sets you see in the catalog is “real time”, the one on the front
page is likely from when the page was rebuilt during a maintenance cycle.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 08:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, patpendlego writes:
| | In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | My idea would involve a bit of programming, but might work very good as well.
Why not give the user control about what they want to see?
|
This is a good idea. You could visit a set inventory and click buttons to see
the set as it appeared new or see it as it should appear used.
|
It is not a matter of new or used. But I like hte idea. Perhaps it should
toggle between set inventory WITH or WITHOUT assemblies. Like when parting out
a set the system has an option for parting out minfigs as well, or not.
|
One could push the idea even further and think it could be applied to time /
production runs.
Let the viewer choose what variants they want to see.
|
|
| Author: | maxx3001 | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 08:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, renhoffman writes:
| | Please see the current incomplete listings of this set.
At the time that this set came out, there was a lot of demand for just the cars,
that in this one case, (IE Cars movie characters), where a new form of minifigures.
There was never any solution to this, and sellers have been forced to sell the
parts only, or list the cars as incomplete sets ever since. Buyers are left confused,
and not able to find what they want.
|
I totally agree with this, those cars need to be minifigs.
| |
So, since you have asked my opinion...  , in case something similar ever comes
up again in the future, these type of characters should have a way to be listed.
I don't have the answer, as all this catalog stuff is beyond me, I'm
more of a builder  .
Darren
|
|
|
| Author: | goodneighbor55 | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, mhortar writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
|
Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.
Josh
|
Hi Josh. Maybe you were thinking of this one
|
|
| Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 07:36 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | My idea would involve a bit of programming, but might work very good as well.
Why not give the user control about what they want to see?
|
This is a good idea. You could visit a set inventory and click buttons to see
the set as it appeared new or see it as it should appear used.
|
It is not a matter of new or used. But I like hte idea. Perhaps it should
toggle between set inventory WITH or WITHOUT assemblies. Like when parting out
a set the system has an option for parting out minfigs as well, or not.
| |
The unfortunate problem is that it would likely take a significant amount of
programming. The BL programmers are working on their own projects and I doubt
this would be a priority for them. Could it be done? Yes. Would we see it
sometime within the next 10 years? Possibly.
The issue of part assemblies has been ongoing for over a decade. I see no reason
why we can't get it fixed right now.
Also, changing the options for viewing inventories doesn't really address
at all the issue of where we should stop with part assemblies.
|
|
|
| Author: | MiStErLu | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 07:30 | | Subject: | How many sets released ? | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi,
On the first page of BrickLink i see 14 729 sets
When i download the set catalog to compare, i see 14 761 sets
Someone can explain me the difference ?
Best regards,
MiStErLu
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 06:09 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | My idea would involve a bit of programming, but might work very good as well.
Why not give the user control about what they want to see?
|
This is a good idea. You could visit a set inventory and click buttons to see
the set as it appeared new or see it as it should appear used.
The unfortunate problem is that it would likely take a significant amount of
programming. The BL programmers are working on their own projects and I doubt
this would be a priority for them. Could it be done? Yes. Would we see it
sometime within the next 10 years? Possibly.
The issue of part assemblies has been ongoing for over a decade. I see no reason
why we can't get it fixed right now.
Also, changing the options for viewing inventories doesn't really address
at all the issue of where we should stop with part assemblies.
|
|
| Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 06:07 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As used-parts collector and seller I see it as follows:
Assemblies.
Assemblies, found as used, may have damage or discoloring on one part while the
other part is good; in general I prefer to disassemble assemblies as much as
possible (like wheel/tire, hinges, etc.) and list each part seperately, therefore
I would prefer to see each individual part available in the Catalog, and as such
listed in Set-inventories.
So in general from my perspective, as used-parts collector and seller, I have
little need for assemblies, except if dissassembly would unrepairably damage
some or all of the parts, like stickered parts, or most likely damage some of
the assembly, like the 3149- and 3324-series hinges, and maybe some wheel/tires,
in which case I do not take them apart, and list them as assembly if that is
available. Although listing them as one part (e.g. the wheel) and mentioning
in the description that it includes the other part (the tire) often works just
as well.
Counterparts.
I have no objection at all to counterparts, nor to assemblies as counterparts.
Counterparts are usefull imo, and with respect to assemblies like stickered over
parts very much desirable.
Like the mentioned hinges however, these could be listed as Superlot in the store,
but then they would not be visible in set-inventories, so I would prefer these
as assembly-counterparts.
Another example of parts that could be an assembly but not neccessarily are below,
it is almost similar to stickered over parts, but not entirely, because these
can be disassembled, however the upper- and lower-pattern on various bricks often
do NOT line-up and I am quite happy when I find two bricks with matching print.
Superlotting these works fine though, on the rare occasion I have these bricks
at all.
In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories. I believe this
has been due to not having written standards regarding this issue. Therefore,
I'd like to create some.
As part of the discussion and decision-making process I'm seeking input from
the community on how you'd like to see part assemblies handled in inventories.
I have updated this page to include my idea of one way to handle assemblies
(see the section titled Additional Information About Counterparts: Part Assemblies
as Counterparts):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
This rule is currently just my idea and no inventories are being changed right
now in regards to that section.
If that's the route we go, then it would mean the removal of certain parts
as counterparts from set inventories. These are some examples of parts which
would likely be removed from inventories because they don't comply with the
rule:
Those parts would join other existing parts in the catalog which are not connected
to any set inventories:
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
As an example of all the assemblies which could be added to the catalog for just
a couple of parts, see this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRelList.asp?relID=13&catID=642
If going the route of inclusion in inventories doesn't open the door to new
assemblies, then we must live with inconsistencies in which parts are added as
assemblies and which are not. As an example of that inconsistency, why is the
first of these two assemblies included in inventories and there is not even a
catalog entry for the second assembly?
* | | 4275 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
LEGO parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways and there are many parts which
naturally fit together. At some point a line absolutely has to be drawn on what
is included in inventories. Where do you feel the line should be drawn?
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 05:15 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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.
|
Well, not exactly. Arbitrary is defined as being based on random choice or
personal whim, rather than any reason or system. The way counterparts have been
handled in the past is undeniably arbitrary. I'd like to move to a defined
system which has reasons behind it and is thus not arbitrary.
| | It's arbitrary because we depart from Lego in many ways that make sense from
the point of view of the buyer and seller.
|
Those are different issues. When it comes to counterparts, I'm confident
that we can create a non-arbitrary method of handling them in inventories.
| | We define minifigs as a unit and inventory them as assemblies, for one thing. Lego does not.
|
They may not inventory them as an assembly, but they define them as such. Read
the item descriptions of any modern LEGO set or look at the set boxes and you'll
see descriptions of, names in many cases for, and photos of assembled minifigures.
Regardless, minifigures are a separate issue altogether and are not comparable
to part assemblies except in a general sense.
| | "Bloated" inventories do not concern me. I'm in favor of more information,
not less.
|
I'm sorry friend, but I don't consider it information. I consider it
noise. I'm still open to whatever, though. We could very well end up throwing
everything into inventories.
If we do, then I trust you'll soon be submitting catalog entries and inventories
and inventory change requests for all the color variations of this part which
will be necessary once we start adding it to inventories?
And part entries for the stickered versions?
* | | 3937pb04 Hinge Brick 1 x 2 Base with Ghostbusters Logo, 'CAUTION' and 'STAY BACK OVER 500 FT' Pattern (Sticker) - Set 75828
Parts: Hinge, Decorated |
And catalog entries for all these combined parts and their color variations?
And entries for the stickered versions of this part?
And I imagine people would want to sell these together?
And these?
And these?
And these?
And these?
I could go on giving examples for quite a long time. My point is that the
line appears to already have been drawn some time ago. It's just that no
one wanted to face the unpleasant task of correcting the excesses of the past
when the line was crossed.
I know that not everyone will be happy regardless of what route we go, but I
also know that you're as fond of consistency as I am. Including some assemblies
in inventories (for no apparent reason) and excluding others (for no apparent
reason) is definitely inconsistent, just as including certain assemblies in the
catalog and excluding others was inconsistent.
| | But if we want to control it, then the place to do that is with the
parts catalog by not adding these assemblies in the first place.
|
Not necessarily. As you say, people do want to buy and sell certain assemblies.
It doesn't hurt anything to have these catalog entries, but that doesn't
mean that we can't have standards for what goes into inventories.
| | But if they ARE added, it seems silly not to connect them to their sets by including them in inventories.
|
Yes, that troubles me also. It's the biggest flaw in my plan to me personally
because I don't like seeing orphaned catalog entries. I've decided I
can live with it for the sake of people who want to buy and sell parts as assemblies.
Also, the orphaned assemblies clearly aren't going to be removed from the
catalog.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Missouri
Canada, Alberta
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Netherlands, Utrecht
