Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | bb1237701  | | Posted: | May 25, 2019 21:27 | | Subject: | Re: Mystery part | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, clrv4000 writes:
| | In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I have pending approval something like this
[p=Unknown]
Did anybody see something like this? Anybody knows anything about it?
|
So, no other numbers or marks anywhere on it?
Like others, I can see countless problems to solve with this but like others
before me, steer clear of Bionicles...looks suspiciously like Bionicle instead
of our endeared Technic
|
Speaking of Bionicle, you could have one of those common Technic ball-joint
balls (32474 or 53585) with just a stud sticking out the side when combined with
such a piece. That's got me brainstorming...
|
Okayyyyy- now I see it! You may be right!
|
 |
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | May 25, 2019 21:11 | | Subject: | Re: Mystery part | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I have pending approval something like this
[p=Unknown]
Did anybody see something like this? Anybody knows anything about it?
|
So, no other numbers or marks anywhere on it?
Like others, I can see countless problems to solve with this but like others
before me, steer clear of Bionicles...looks suspiciously like Bionicle instead
of our endeared Technic
|
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2019 20:48 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | I’m wondering what’s the rationale for having changed the name (and dimensions)
of
from “1 L” to “2/3 L”.
I can’t see where it’s 0.67L.
Especially if I compare it to
and their variants, or with
and other liftarms/beams, or all the connectors with “# L” in their descriptions.
In the same way, its new dimensions are 1 x 1 x 0.67. As it’s a cylinder, it
means the 0.67 is supposed to apply to its height. But its height is exactly
1 stud, which is 5/6th = 0.83 brick, not 2/3rd = 0.67, and, anyway, “L” means
stud, not brick, so 1 = 1.
Therefore, I strongly believe its name should have stayed “Technic, Pin Connector
Round 1 L” and its dimensions should be 1 x 1 x 0.83.
(Actually, its diameter is a shy less than 1 stud, so its dimensions should be
0.9something x 0.9something x 0.83 but all the liftarms have the same width and
are said to be 1 stud wide.)
Not filing a proper catalogue change request because I really would want to know
the reasoning here, not play ping-pong.
|
I don't really care too much right now about the dimensions of the part.
What I care about more is how it is named and categorized. I have never thought
of it as a "Pin Connector" because it actually can't connect pins at all.
It is basically a 1L bushing for pins in the same way
is a 1L bushing for axles.
Cheers,
Randy
|
So is a "pin" the same as a "stud"?
Example, part 2817 is a modified plate, 2 x 2 with pin holder
and it is possible to attach a stud of say a 1x4 in the pin holder to do a perpendicular
build. Is the cuff for attachment too shallow on the 18654 to, say, do a reversal?
Just asking or future buying and building
|
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 19:31 | | Subject: | Re: inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | […]
| | Against.
I don’t know why “jumper” was chosen. The similarity with electrical jumpers
(little wires that “jump” over the main circuits, or little thingies to connect
two plots) is tenuous: yes it’s a connector but everything connects in LEGO.
But I believe “jumper” can be taken to mean that the connection “jumps” half
a stud.
Anyway, “jumper” is well engraved as meaning “offset stud” which the missing-studs
plates and having-studs tiles don’t have.
|
Sylvain, your previous thread-joint reply was appreciated! A Programmer-based
deficiency for sure...
So, truly, what we all need to consider is this:
Is BrickLink, as the premier site for those who have, maybe for the first time,
visited Lego.com to complete sets or begin their life-long passion as a creator
of MOC, or to find long sought after sets from days they remember, to base our
catalogue on Lego.com nomenclature and numbering system to be:
"Buyer Focused" so that they can jump-start their search based on item classifications
and numbers they found off of a set they own or want to recreate...Or, maybe,
just maybe, even more Intuitive! Now that would be something.
Or, wanting to determine the number of categories and number/images to make it
easy to store and access for those selling to pick from to be:
"Seller Focused"
My guess is that there are a lot more first-time potential buyers registering
on here and trying to make sense of what we are doing than long-term hobbyists.
I am always aware of what we may be losing in customer base. Just have a heart
for the ones that you never hear from on the Forum who just can't make sense
of it all...
|
Indeed. But what I’m against, and I wasn’t clear, is the use of the term “jumper”
for a tile with studs + plate without studs category.
For me, “jumper” is specific to 3794 (and its variants) and then to 87580 and
then to 34103. That’s only 3 (or 5) parts.
All tiles and plates could well be in a unique category (like they mostly are
in LDraw or LDD) but I don’t want it called “jumper” 
The problem verily lies within the strict category system, the lack of a parallel
tag system or at least the possibility for a part to appear in more than one
category.
With such a system, either you have a system that plans for anything and everything,
and you end up with the Dewey Decimal Classification for books, that no one understands
but specialists,
|
LOL
or you have a system that needs to change with new elements
| | or better knowledge on the elements, like Linné’s taxonomy of living beings,
and, well, that no one understands but specialists either 
|
(cont.) LOL
| | Either way, there’s still a need for a simple way, both for the hoi polloi and
the elite actually, to find a part, or a group of similar parts (whatever “similar”
might mean), in a few clicks.
In a library, the Dewey DC (or another similar system) is used for numbering
the books and the shelves but a patron just needs to talk to a librarian or use
a search tool to find the book they want, they don’t need to know the DDC. And
if a patron browses an alley, they will see similar books, but they won’t see,
for instance, all the books written by the same author if these fall under different
domains.
In a virtual system, like BL, the “patron” can be presented with an “alley” containing
all the plates, or all the parts with pins, or all the 2x2 parts….
In short, what I’m trying to say is you can twist a category system in all the
ways you want, you will still need knowledge to use it, it will still be for
the specialists. To allow newbies to use it, you need a librarian, and this
website should be one.
|
+++++++++++++1
|
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 19:08 | | Subject: | Re: inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Yep.
Newbies to this site are told they can find everything here, but the reality
is they're like corpulent bodies with raw meat strapped to them, thrown into
the deep end of the pool where there are sharks with frikkin' lasers!
BrickLink is a very complicated site. Kind of like being strapped into an airplane
cockpit for the first time and, without benefit of any instruction, being told
to fly to a foreign country. There are a lot of things to sort out.
The site needs some genuine marketing savoir faire, plain easy-to-understand
instructions, and a thousand other things. But a good start would be a home page
that says "Welcome to Bricklink" and a big-ass obvious link to "New to Bricklink
Start Here" and a Start Here page with some simple concepts like:
BrickLink is a marketplace where thousands of Lego fans operate independent storefronts.
...and a decent explanation of what that's all about.
BrickLink is a crowdsourced online catalog.
...and a decent explanation of what that's all about.
The Wanted List.
How to buy.
Those four things would go a long way to helping out the newbies. You come here
the first time, it's daunting. Strap tight for your first foray into the
forum.
The other thing, pertinent to the current thread, would be a decent glossary.
That alone ought to help sort out or crystallize concepts relative to language
(plates vs tiles) and other concepts.
|
mfav you are truly awesome!
So, Air Force UPT, Undergraduate Pilot Training:
You are in the bowels of Southern Texas heat- the instructor sits in the back
seat of the two seat Grumman.
Tell you over the helmet mike, "Put your left glove on but leave the right one
off."
Ten minutes in to your first g-Force loop: You, to your instructor, "I'm
not feeling so good..."
He says, "Take your right hand glove."
"Okay", you say.
Next you tell him you're gonna Hurl.
He says, "That's what your right glove it for."
"Okay", you say after purging, "I'm better."
Your instructor says, "Now, put your right glove on."
...as you prepare to land.
True story...
|
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 17:57 | | Subject: | Re: inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:
| | I would like to see the Tile Modified ones that have studs moved to Plate Modified.
I vote yes.
|
I am torn. I feel like having studs is characteristic of the plate and not having
studs is characteristic of the tile. Is it possible to have a new category specifically
for tiles that have some studs and plates that have some flat space? The most
obvious (to me) name for the category would be Jumpers, but I don't really
know how that word came to be used the way Lego uses it.
|
Against.
I don’t know why “jumper” was chosen. The similarity with electrical jumpers
(little wires that “jump” over the main circuits, or little thingies to connect
two plots) is tenuous: yes it’s a connector but everything connects in LEGO.
But I believe “jumper” can be taken to mean that the connection “jumps” half
a stud.
Anyway, “jumper” is well engraved as meaning “offset stud” which the missing-studs
plates and having-studs tiles don’t have.
|
Sylvain, your previous thread-joint reply was appreciated! A Programmer-based
deficiency for sure...
So, truly, what we all need to consider is this:
Is BrickLink, as the premier site for those who have, maybe for the first time,
visited Lego.com to complete sets or begin their life-long passion as a creator
of MOC, or to find long sought after sets from days they remember, to base our
catalogue on Lego.com nomenclature and numbering system to be:
"Buyer Focused" so that they can jump-start their search based on item classifications
and numbers they found off of a set they own or want to recreate...Or, maybe,
just maybe, even more Intuitive! Now that would be something.
Or, wanting to determine the number of categories and number/images to make it
easy to store and access for those selling to pick from to be:
"Seller Focused"
My guess is that there are a lot more first-time potential buyers registering
on here and trying to make sense of what we are doing than long-term hobbyists.
I am always aware of what we may be losing in customer base. Just have a heart
for the ones that you never hear from on the Forum who just can't make sense
of it all...
|
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 15:32 | | Subject: | Re: inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | Either
way, if you don't have principal characteristics of what constitutes a tile
or plate (for example groove = tile), any classification is going to be inconsistent
and a matter of opinion.
|
I like this sentence.
|
Me too.
Well, except for the example, as there are plates with grooves
and tiles/plates variants with and without groove 
(And the jumpers too….)
|
Yeah... the fact that there's a variation that would span across categories
if you take the groove as the defining factor, kind of kills that idea pretty
effectively.
Anyway, in my opinion it's not a huge deal that it's not perfect. TileMod
and PlateMod are two fairly big categories, nicely sized if you ask me. God forbid
someone would decide to merge them together because there's no principal
distinction possible. I'd rather put up with a bit of inconsistency that's
very easy to learn, than one huge category that is difficult to manage, both
in terms of browsing it online as well as storing it for me and other stores
who have category based sorting..
And we have the forum for venting inconsistency frustrations, which works pretty
well too
|
Just going to put this out there and wait for the bashing,
Why not put them in both categories?
|
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Apr 2, 2019 17:31 | | Subject: | Re: Old (classic) light gray | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, SylvainLS writes:
| | As for your parts, they may be from different batches. But their difference
in colour might not have been noticeable when they were brand new. They might
also have aged differently because of their composition. Or they may be like
other bricks in composition but still have aged differently because they weren’t
stored like others.
|
We have wondered about the opacity and density of the different batch productions
over the years as we have put together multiple sets from 80's through 2000.
There seems to be an altogether different feel from 5 years to the next (due
to composition changes?) in a lot of the bricks in reclaimed set batches we have
handled recently. Ours were stored in 70 to 78 degree F in a Lego case and Lego
trunk for years- thus, no UV effects.
Separately, I have acquired two new building sets and just "feel" a different
lightness and lack of opaque color...
Separately- Really wanting these variations in the old light gray to not be "donated"
but exposed for whatever variant in color or production made these happen at
whatever time sets had these colour variants!!!
|
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2019 16:04 | | Subject: | Re: Window Identification please | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| |
In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | I can't seem to find the number for this window, 4x2, 2x2, with shutter slots
and stop ridge in yellow:
|
|
All Replies Soooooo Great! That is it! Why, oh Why, is this not a Window!!!!!!
Many, Many thanks and btw, new buyers on here would never, ever, know where to
find this...
Thanks Again! Love you all!
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2019 15:55 | | Subject: | Window Identification please | | Viewed: | 98 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I can't seem to find the number for this window, 4x2, 2x2, with shutter slots
and stop ridge in yellow:
|
|
|
| Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 18:36 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
|
As we know, 3937 works with all canopies.
| |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
|
|
|
USA, Arizona
)
)
)
