Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Teup  | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2019 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: Why can't I enlarge pics anymore? | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, QA_Rachel writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | So you used to be able to click on the picture of a piece in the catalog, sort
of a quick view. You'd see the years it was made, any sets/minifigures the
piece was in, etc. You all know what I'm talking about. Well, a few days
ago I couldn't do it anymore. I've tried three different devices.
Why would they make such a horrible change for? I rely on that heavily when listing
minifigure parts to make sure I have the correct listing. This is going to make
this job twice as long now.
|
The zoom-in bug was fixed a few weeks ago but it seems that a recent site update
may have reverted the fix. I'll forward the information to someone on our
development team to take a look. I'll let you know once we've resolved
the issue.
Thank you!
|
|
|
 |
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jul 26, 2019 11:19 | | Subject: | Re: Either a bonafide brain-fart, or a seizure... | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, cycbuild writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, cycbuild writes:
| | Sylvain has spent a lot of time familiarizing himself with BrickLink, and is
a frequent contributor here. There's no need to be so relentlessly dismissive.
|
I agree. But in all fairness we can't ignore the question in the back of
our minds: When is this guy finally going to buy some more LEGO? 
|
|
My wallet has the reverse question
Though getting around 700€ of LEGO for around 15€ thanks to coupons and destocking
made us both quite happy a couple months ago 
|
Wow!  Then my question changes... Why is this guy not selling any LEGO?
|
What, with all the problems you sellers continuously whine about on the forum?
Besides, MY precious, MINE!
|
You're here discussing its problems out of your own free will, who's
silly now?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jul 26, 2019 10:08 | | Subject: | Re: Either a bonafide brain-fart, or a seizure... | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, cycbuild writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, cycbuild writes:
| | Sylvain has spent a lot of time familiarizing himself with BrickLink, and is
a frequent contributor here. There's no need to be so relentlessly dismissive.
|
I agree. But in all fairness we can't ignore the question in the back of
our minds: When is this guy finally going to buy some more LEGO?
|
|
My wallet has the reverse question
Though getting around 700€ of LEGO for around 15€ thanks to coupons and destocking
made us both quite happy a couple months ago
|
Wow! Then my question changes... Why is this guy not selling any LEGO?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jul 26, 2019 09:09 | | Subject: | Re: Either a bonafide brain-fart, or a seizure... | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cycbuild writes:
| | Sylvain has spent a lot of time familiarizing himself with BrickLink, and is
a frequent contributor here. There's no need to be so relentlessly dismissive.
|
I agree. But in all fairness we can't ignore the question in the back of
our minds: When is this guy finally going to buy some more LEGO?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jul 25, 2019 18:36 | | Subject: | Re: Either a bonafide brain-fart, or a seizure... | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | In Suggestions, randyf writes:
| | In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | Wayne's post and others like it, https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1150409
brings to mind an idea that briefly visited my headspace some time ago:
A type of reverse want list. That is, a way that sellers could peruse the current
want lists to specific buyer's needs, to then as a seller, proactively engage
members like Wayne with offers on items they have on their want list.
Kinda like amping-up the want list and selling process, by getting the sellers
more involved in increasing their sales by actually selling
It's just a rough draft of an idea. Limitations, restriction and other refinements
of the idea, expected.
But hey, BL shot-callers, it speaks directly to upping the sales numbers!
-Cory
|
As long as I could opt out of it, I would be all for it. I don't need sellers
spamming me with offers of things on my want list.
|
Of course, always the ability to opt-out, I agree.
Very good input, Randy
|
I think it would rather be on an opt in basis, because doing it by default would
be privacy violation. Reminds me of the trouble Amazon is in over looking into
its sellers sales data. Anyway, not a bad idea, when it's based on buyers
explicitly choosing to publish their wanted list.
Anyway, seller tools was cancelled, so there's not much chance for this
or any other smart suggestion over the past years to see the light of day. Better
to try it over at BO, they certainly like to discuss such ideas and look into
options of implementation.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2019 06:50 | | Subject: | Re: Plant 2417? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Biscuit_head writes:
| | Sustainability: avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain
an ecological balance.
They're using less crude oil by no longer using it to make plant peices.
They could possibly make all of the parts from plants instead of oil once they
find enough sugar cane farms that can keep up with the demand.
|
I guess producing crude oil generates a lot of emissions. But I wonder how much
less emissions their new production process really involves. I guess it kind
of stands or falls with that.
The end result is the same: polyethylene, which is basically a polluting substance.
But that's if you throw it away, of course, and thankfully LEGO is far from
single use. But the amount of parts LEGO pumps out of their machines per day
is staggering and it has to go somewhere eventually.
I would be more impressed if LEGO invested in degrading plastic. Not making parts
that degrade, I mean, but degrading the durable high quality parts with some
special process. I don't know about ABS but scientists already discovered
caterpillars that are able to digest polyethylene. If LEGO had some scheme you
could send in old and broken parts in exchange for some VIP points of whatever,
and they'd degrade or recycle it, then we'd be talking.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jul 23, 2019 17:47 | | Subject: | Re: Plant 2417? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, TallyToyBricks writes:
| | How are the 2417 plant leaves different from the "plant based" 2417?
Thanks
|
It's the same plastic: Polyethylene. It's just made from fresh plants
rather than from dinosaurs (oil). But it isn't biodegradable in any way and
as far as I can see doesn't have much merit in terms of sustainability or
the environment.
"The new sustainable LEGO elements are made from polyethylene, which is a soft,
durable and flexible plastic, and while they are based on sugar-cane material,
they are technically identical to those produced using conventional plastic."
(and a bit of marketing blabla about sustainability)
https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2018/march/pfp
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2019 19:25 | | Subject: | Re: Have all members pay BL $1 to buy and/or sell | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, skybound13 writes:
| |
As a recent new member, would I have paid $5.00 (or whatever) for a lifetime
BrickLink membership? The concept would have bothered me a little at first,
but yeah, I would have paid because I wanted buyer privileges. If that fee were
refunded back after so many orders, great, if not, not a big deal really.
Hmm, as I think more about it, such a payment would at least confirm that a buyer
is a real person and has a means by which to pay for orders online.
|
I think you may be pretty exceptional in this. While you are right it could be
a good decision to pay it, I think that the vast majority of people will not
realize it and be turned away by it. The current situation with so many consumers
unwilling to sign up for Bricklink is bad enough as it is.. even creating an
account and learning to navigate the site is already too much for alot of regular
consumers. Let's not make Bricklink's weak point even weaker. People
want to find their products and then buy them by clicking on them and entering
their address. Not go through some strange process of paying a fee for "being
a member" of something they don't (yet) care about..
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2019 19:19 | | Subject: | Re: Have all members pay BL $1 to buy and/or sell | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, firestar246 writes:
| | Don't agree with this at all. This will do nothing except make a lot of people
mad. Ever since I set up instant checkout about a year ago, I've had only
2 NPBs I can think of; one of them what an international buyer, that when I contact,
said that the shipping was too high so I cancelled. The other I never got a response.
So non-paying buyers aren't really a big deal if you have your store set
up correctly.
|
Agreed. It sounds absurdly consumer unfriendly and frankly hard to take seriously.
Imagine going to the supermarket and being charged $1 upon entry that will not
be refunded. In the EU, consumers can cancel or return purchases for full refunds.
It's considered a vital part of commerce. It would certainly scare off buyers
if they were forced to agree to this. Also, it would require new buyers to set
up a PayPal account and send money to it before placing their first order, which
they are just not going to do.
And yes, NPB's are just not really a big deal. All stores have to deal with
returns, it's part of business. Wanting to eliminate it 100% sounds like
lazy thinking from the seller's perspective. What's next? "Let's
trap all buyers inside of this mall so they don't go out without buying our
products"
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | May 13, 2019 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Fair, safe and legal trading = BL principles | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | |
- Full acceptance of cancellation without penalty and without reason required
|
This issue has been around for years (as has the thread!). There is no legal
right to cancellation without penalty. The buyer has a right to cancel,
but that does not mean that they can order, then cancel. Order, then cancel.
And so on without penalty. If a buyer becomes a problem for a store (whether
on BL or elsewhere), the store is legally entitled to stop selling to them. It
is the same with feedback - feedback does not affect the right to cancellation.
Just because a buyer has a right to cancel, it does not take away the right a
seller has to leave feedback or file a NPB. Of course, if a buyer is responsive
and asks for a cancellation, then many decent sellers will allow cancellations
and they may be more lenient than if the buyer just doesn't pay. But if a
buyer orders then cancels, orders then cancels, orders then cancels, it wouldn't
surprise me if the buyer gets blocked from buying from that store.
|
Well, yes, you are right. The seller has to cancel when requested but is entitled
to taking any measures they like. Especially since this Bricklink world is slightly
different from regular online retail as a lot of labour goes into getting an
order together.
Maybe the "without penalty" part wasn't phrased to well. At least I would
like the language to change. Because right now some sellers write things in their
terms like "I don't accept cancellation requests" or "orders are legally
binding contracts" or stuff like that. I think there's an important distinction
between discouraging it / considering it rude or something like that on the one
hand, and making buyers believe they have no actual choice but to pay up on the
other hand. The latter is basically misinformation about the rights that consumers
have. I think vulnerable/naive consumers should be protected by at least being
offered store terms that don't obscure their rights.
| |
| | And last but not least:
- Being responsible for lost shipments - meaning full refund or resend if anything
goes missing
|
And no problem there, and this holds if the buyer pays with paypal anyway. Although
if BL start asking for proof of delivery routinely, this may change smaller orders
as sellers start charging for this.
|
I think Bricklink could do two things in all this: 1. Enforcing by being involved
with the actual transactions, which might be complicated and costly (although
that is not an excuse it is not needed - perhaps it is) and/or 2. Simply moderate
store terms ahead of any transactions a store may be involved in. That's
not too much manual work, and we live in an age where computers can recognize
actual people in photographs, so I'm pretty sure some algorithms can be put
together to spot illegal store term claims. Even with a simple search operation
it's easy to spot them.
I think the main problem has to do with stores having illegal terms more than
store having legal terms but not keeping to them. Once the store terms are sound,
buyers will be able to call out and spot bad sellers pretty easily whenever they
cause trouble that's not in line with their own terms.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Netherlands, Utrecht
