Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | 62Bricks  | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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:
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: | 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.
|
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
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 10:39 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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?
| | 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
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 35 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
|
There have been, yes. But this is not an issue. We already have a method for
dealing with bi-color parts, which is to define one color in the title and one
in the color field. Like these parts, for example:
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 46 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,
In my childhood collection, I only had one white
and one red
But the white one got broken, sigh 
They came with this beautiful set that my mother really liked:
SezaR
|
|
| Author: | ZwarteMagica | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 03:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| First, excellent you seek opinions first before acting!
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?
I can imaging that every user has his or her own purpose of using the inventory.
So give them control about what to see.
Making check boxes or radio boxes at the inventory page to change the inventory
quickly and make it some sort of default setting like the part/set upload for
sale where you can choose which one should be the default.
Also let the user choose if the want to see every thing or just one complete
inventory.
For example: do not show stickersheets in the inventory of you show sticker-ed
parts.
Together with a couple of smart inventory editors/admins you can define a couple
of needed/wanted inventory settings.
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 00:41 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 23:25 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.
Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.
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.
Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.
|
I would bet that most collectors trying to identify that part in a set would
have no trouble finding the constituent part entries, but we would need data
to back that up. In any case, writing "Any collector...is confused..." is extremely
hyperbolic.
| | Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.
A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?
Now look at a practically identical part:
Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.
|
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but the comparison is apples
to oranges.
This part in *no* way can be disassembled as easily as 3830c01. It is always
packaged as a complete assembly, and it is not meant to be taken apart, just
as steering wheel assemblies are not meant to be taken apart. 3830c01 is packaged
as separate components and is very easy to take apart due to the Technic pin
connection which everyone is used to handling.
Also, it is not *our* arbitrary rule that calls this a part. It is LEGO themselves
who call this a part. LEGO do not sell the halves of it separately to consumers,
so why would anyone expect them separate. However, 3830c01 is made of two parts
that are both separately recognized and sold to consumers by LEGO. No one gets
these parts as a whole from LEGO, so why would the expectation at BrickLink be
any different to what comes in the packages that we all open.
In the end, I fail to see where these items are in anyway similar besides their
function.
| | So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:
If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.
Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.
|
Your definition is a nice one at the other extreme of this debate, so thanks
for chiming in. As someone who works on inventories, I want them to be as simple
as possible, and currently they can get quite bloated with all the Counterpart
entries. Your definition would just lead to more bloat in the inventories that
I would have to wade through. However, I understand that sellers have different
priorities with the inventories.
So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need to
ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of just
one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking at
what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?
I don't know what the answer is, but I am glad the situation is being looked
into.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I think most people would not understand why one is in inventories and the other
is not. The parts are very similar.
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.
It's arbitrary because we depart from Lego in many ways that make sense from
the point of view of the buyer and seller. We define minifigs as a unit and inventory
them as assemblies, for one thing. Lego does not.
Why do we do that? Because that's how people want to use our catalog. Imagine
what it would be like if we applied this restricted counterpart definition to
minifigs and did nnot allow them to be listed in set inventories. It would make
it simpler to create inventories, right? People could still figure things out
by tracking down the constituent parts. So why not?
Because minifigs are assemblies that users want to buy, sell and identify as
an assembled unit. The same is true of many counterparts.
"Bloated" inventories do not concern me. I'm in favor of more information,
not less. 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. But if they
ARE added, it seems silly not to connect them to their sets by including them
in inventories. That is one of the basic features of the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 19:57 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.
Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.
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.
Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.
|
I would bet that most collectors trying to identify that part in a set would
have no trouble finding the constituent part entries, but we would need data
to back that up. In any case, writing "Any collector...is confused..." is extremely
hyperbolic.
| | Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.
A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?
Now look at a practically identical part:
Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.
|
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but the comparison is apples
to oranges.
This part in *no* way can be disassembled as easily as 3830c01. It is always
packaged as a complete assembly, and it is not meant to be taken apart, just
as steering wheel assemblies are not meant to be taken apart. 3830c01 is packaged
as separate components and is very easy to take apart due to the Technic pin
connection which everyone is used to handling.
Also, it is not *our* arbitrary rule that calls this a part. It is LEGO themselves
who call this a part. LEGO do not sell the halves of it separately to consumers,
so why would anyone expect them separate. However, 3830c01 is made of two parts
that are both separately recognized and sold to consumers by LEGO. No one gets
these parts as a whole from LEGO, so why would the expectation at BrickLink be
any different to what comes in the packages that we all open.
In the end, I fail to see where these items are in anyway similar besides their
function.
| | So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:
If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.
Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.
|
Your definition is a nice one at the other extreme of this debate, so thanks
for chiming in. As someone who works on inventories, I want them to be as simple
as possible, and currently they can get quite bloated with all the Counterpart
entries. Your definition would just lead to more bloat in the inventories that
I would have to wade through. However, I understand that sellers have different
priorities with the inventories.
So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need to
ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of just
one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking at
what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?
I don't know what the answer is, but I am glad the situation is being looked
into.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 19:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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.
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: | edeevo | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 19:13 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, WoutR writes:
| | Assemblies that are combined simply because they are "easy to sell" or "probably
wanted by buyers" are no real counterparts according to this definition. (Although
I do usually buy my hinges combined/as a pair, so I have some mixed feelings
about those.)
|
As I said, I imagine the catalog entries would remain. You could still buy and
sell assemblies (like the hinges you prefer to buy as a pair), but they wouldn't
be included in inventories.
As for assemblies that aren't really legitimate counterparts, I only made
two exceptions: parts with wheels and wheel and tire assemblies. I don't
feel like two exceptions is too many. The other exceptions are special/large
assemblies and those will likely have their own section in inventories at some
point.
|
Just to reiterate, I am not in favor of wheel and tire assemblies in inventories
unless they came that way and are listed in the Regular Items section. Wheels
and tires are not hard to take apart. My kids have been doing it since they were
young.
| | Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It seems like everyone who
has responded are on pretty much the same page. The only real problem I can
see with better defined inventories is that it will create more orphaned catalog
entries (entries without appearances in sets or timelines of release). These
orphaned entries are somewhat off the beaten path and thus are more difficult
to locate.
How do you feel about that?
|
Orphaned entries in the catalog do not bother me. There are tons of items in
the catalog that will never be attached to any inventory, and there are also
tons of items in the catalog that will never be sold. Database storage is cheap.
If people want to use the entries to sell assemblies, so be it.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I can't honestly remember if these came assembled:
What I do know is if you find one assembled still, and it doesn't have cracks,
keep it that way; because I have had very little success removing them without
cracking them(!)
Though, in general, I agree with Randy about his view on tire and wheel assemblies...
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 19:08 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.
Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.
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.
Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.
Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.
A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?
Now look at a practically identical part:
Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.
So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:
If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.
Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 18:27 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | […]
Just to reiterate, I am not in favor of wheel and tire assemblies in inventories
unless they came that way and are listed in the Regular Items section. Wheels
and tires are not hard to take apart. My kids have been doing it since they were
young.
|
I remember having had problems with this one as kid:
* | | 8c02 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire Offset Tread Small (8 / 3464c02)
Parts: Aircraft |
(Both wheel from plate and then tire from hub.)
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 18:05 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, WoutR writes:
| | Assemblies that are combined simply because they are "easy to sell" or "probably
wanted by buyers" are no real counterparts according to this definition. (Although
I do usually buy my hinges combined/as a pair, so I have some mixed feelings
about those.)
|
As I said, I imagine the catalog entries would remain. You could still buy and
sell assemblies (like the hinges you prefer to buy as a pair), but they wouldn't
be included in inventories.
As for assemblies that aren't really legitimate counterparts, I only made
two exceptions: parts with wheels and wheel and tire assemblies. I don't
feel like two exceptions is too many. The other exceptions are special/large
assemblies and those will likely have their own section in inventories at some
point.
|
Just to reiterate, I am not in favor of wheel and tire assemblies in inventories
unless they came that way and are listed in the Regular Items section. Wheels
and tires are not hard to take apart. My kids have been doing it since they were
young.
| | Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It seems like everyone who
has responded are on pretty much the same page. The only real problem I can
see with better defined inventories is that it will create more orphaned catalog
entries (entries without appearances in sets or timelines of release). These
orphaned entries are somewhat off the beaten path and thus are more difficult
to locate.
How do you feel about that?
|
Orphaned entries in the catalog do not bother me. There are tons of items in
the catalog that will never be attached to any inventory, and there are also
tons of items in the catalog that will never be sold. Database storage is cheap.
If people want to use the entries to sell assemblies, so be it.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Missouri
Canada, Alberta
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Netherlands, Utrecht
