| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | jodawill  | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2014 00:17 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 42026-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 4716 Black Technic, Gear Worm Screw (Alternate)
Comments from Submitter:
15457 was quickly discontinued due to quality issues
|
 |
| Author: | jodawill | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2014 02:22 | | Subject: | Re: Allow Brickset to Link to Part List & Sellers | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Still no response from Bricklink?
In Suggestions, Miro78 writes:
| | In Suggestions, Huw writes:
| | In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, goshe7 writes:
| | I don't really have a strong preference about the catalog. I've uploaded a minimal
amount of info to it and don't really care how it gets used/abused. I'm just
trying to explain some of the rationale I have seen in these discussions previously.
If I wanted to champion the release of BrickLink catalog data, I'd start the
argument with BrickStore. That is oddly omitted from many of these discussions.
|
The catalog is, and has always been, freely downloadable:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogDownload.asp
All of it.
With no restrictions placed on it.
By design.
Dan was always more community oriented than commercially oriented and believed
in freely sharing information to foster the community. Yes this may lead to
some use that we do not like, but that was the tradeoff for for the positives.
Brickstore would be one of the positives. It gives users the ability to do things
that Dan either could not or would not support on BrickLink. It was a winning
situation for everyone. Dan didn't have to provide features that only a small
subset of users wanted/needed. Members still got the features they wanted.
The author of BrickStore was able to make some money to defray the cost of producing
the software. The only negative is that the software is no longer being developed.
But in true community spirit, it is open source, so people can continue the
development on their own.
I believe that Brickset would also be a positive for all involved, depending
on how it is implemented. I believe that Brickset has a wider reach than Bricklink
in that it reaches people outside the core AFOL market. As such, it could only
drive more traffic to BrickLink, which makes BL more money and makes BrickLink
sellers more money. The only issue to be resolved would be how to compensate
Brickset for sending the traffic.
Any agreement between the two sites could stipulate that the inventory and parts
catalog information could only be used to link back to BrickLink and not to other
competing sites. Brickset maintains its own catalog of set information so it
would remain free to continue to link set info to eBay and Amazon. There is
also potential for information to travel in the other direction as well. BrickLink
could use set reviews.
Troy
|
I am encouraged by the generally positive nature of the discussion this time,
and thank you to everyone who's putting the case forward for allowing it.
I understand the concern about Brickset promoting eBay and Amazon, your main
competitors, but I'm pleased to see that many of you recognise that it would
be better for you if it were to promote eBay, Amazon AND BrickLink.
To clarify a few points:
- If Brickset were to display set inventories, they would not appear on any page
that also showed eBay or Amazon links at the same time.
- Links on image/part numbers would lead directly to the appropriate place on
BrickLink (whatever you stipulate that to be, the catalogue or for sale list,
perhaps)
- Currently, Brickset does not promote eBay or Amazon when viewing minifigs and
that would be the case for parts. Data provided by BrickLink would NOT be used
to promote anything other than BrickLink and would not be made available to 3rd
parties.
- There would be no stress placed on the BrickLink system by retreiving the inventories,
as it would be a one-off exercise when one was first requested by a user, possibly
refreshed every couple of months.
- There would potentially be an increase in requests for images from the BL server,
but arguably no more than if someone viewed the inventory after clicking on a
link to view it at BrickLink. In most cases users' browsers would cache these
anyway so any increase would be negligible.
My motivations for wanting to do this have been questioned in the past, often
with suspicion. Of course I want to do it to make Brickset a better website which
provides its users with more information. But, in doing so I believe it can make
for a more joined-up community which will benefit BrickLink as much as it does
Brickset. As someone pointed out earlier, Brickset's demographic is very different
from BrickLink's and many of its users do not even know BrickLink exists, or
are suspicious of it. There are several discussions in the forum where this has
been raised.
Finally, I have a working prototype showing how I would like to integrate BrickLink
inventories into Brickset and I can make it available for testing to anyone that's
interested. Drop me an email (huw@brickset.com) with your Brickset username.
(I wrote all the code to do so a few years ago but have never made it publicly
available)
Thank you for reading this. I welcome your comments. I would also welcome knowing
who ultimately can make a decision to allow this.
Huw
|
It has been 19 months since any more posts were done on this topic. Ownership
has changed hands on Bricklink and I am curious to know if the stance has changed
at all. I am not familiar with the history between Brickset and Bricklink, but
I think this would help both parties. Afterall, BrickOwl is already on both Brickset
and Rebrickable. Times are changing, what is Bricklink's stance now?
Miro
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Indiana
