| 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.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
USA, Vermont
