Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies |
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Feb 18, 2019 20:07 | | Subject: | Re: Questions about Unikitty / Counterparts | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, TyresOFlaherty writes:
| | Randy,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! (And nice avatar, Blacktron II forever!)
That makes sense, and my only counter-point to that is that Brickset uses info
from here to list minifigures, and being a collector, it's nice to be able
to have each of the alternate figs listed in a collection. Additionally, it gives
sellers more options to sell unique minifigs as well.
Just giving my two cents.
Thanks!
-Kevin
P.S. I'm curious how those decisions are made, is there one person that decides
on all these things, or do a bunch of admins just come to an agreement? Just
wondering 
|
We've discovered that the only two to have multiple versions of the minifig
were the SDCC exclusives, and there were no instructions for those - only box
art that wasn't always consistent.
Considering the fact that people aren't going to be parting out those sets
for the minifigures, there doesn't seem to be a lot of harm in leaving those
two as exceptions.
But for all other sets, we've decided one entry is enough. To allow more
entries like this would create a precedent with huge implications. So your pending
entries will be rejected in a few days.
FYI, decisions like this are often made in the back rooms of BL where the admins
have their own Forum.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Feb 15, 2019 23:02 | | Subject: | Re: Aren't these differences ridiculous? | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, rosies writes:
| | Actually,
The powers that be will be removing 3 of them from the catalogue in a few weeks.
|
Is that so? Please elaborate.
| | In Catalog, brikomania writes:
| | I really like the extensive catalog, and think that most of the differences (like
the jumpers or tiles with groove, etc) are really useful.
But when you get to things like this, with a 1 x 2 x 6 arch, having something
like 4 variants, doesn't it make it too hard for sellers AND buyers?
I get the raised arch difference, that is notable, but this thin/thick thing?
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2019 12:28 | | Subject: | Re: Minifig Inventory for 70831? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, TyresOFlaherty writes:
| | I've been uploading new parts for 70831 the past couple days, and I'm
just about ready to do a full inventory on the set, I'm just waiting for
3 minifigs that I've tried to add to be approved: tlm145, tlm146, tlm147.
I know that they're in line numerically behind other figs that will be approved
once the Apocalypseburg (7084) is approved, can I get an admin to approve them
so I can inventory them and get them added to 70831?
Thanks!
|
They are being held up because of issues concerning the exact build. The rocket
guy has blasts coming out of the rockets. However, we need to decide whether
or not to include the whole blaster backpack assembly or not. Sometimes those
decisions take a while.
The unikitties have similar problems. First, I don't know if we will approve
two different constructions of a minifigure for a single set. This has been done
before, but only on a case-by-case basis.
The sleeping one will get approved for sure since it comes from the primary build.
However, you need to reshoot that one with the head attached as shown in the
instructions. The current pending image shows the head 1/2 stud offset to the
right. It shouldn't cover the Reddish Brown 1 x 1 at all.
I realize the photos on the box and instructions show the sleeping kitty built
the way you have it in your photo, but we try to stick close to the instructions
whenever possible.
Thanks for you contributions so far, especially the images.
Go ahead and move the inventory to pending status using autofill before it drops
off the reservation list. You can add the figs to the pending inventory and the
Inv Admins will address any problems they see.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2019 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, alphadavy writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
It is a shame that the site cannot do something and step in and help sellers
and buyers here, by realising what they need. Some people want to sell and buy
complete series. I thought the primary goal of bricklink was to enable sales
of LEGO, so adding a "complete series" for each CMF or similar series would work
well for those people. Does it really matter that they were never sold that way
by LEGO? If need be, this information could always be added as a note to a complete
series entry.
|
+1
It's about time!
|
Here you go. Let's try it out.
Let me know if you think the random one needs a big question mark placed over
it. If people like this entry and use it, we'll go ahead and add the others.
|
Thanks, everybody, for the responses.
In the last 12 days we have sold as many of the complete series as were sold
in the last 5 months under the random entry.
In response, I have added another of these collective entries:
And when we add The LEGO Movie 2 Series in a few days, it will also have an "entire
series" entry so we can see how it does from the start.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 22, 2019 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: sw695 is now sw0695 | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, grimsbricksuk writes:
| | Yes but why?
In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Catalog, grimsbricksuk writes:
| | They've changed the SW minifig numbering system & I'm not sure why...?
In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | Happened to notice this was changed between the time I downloaded my inventory
and the time that I tried to upload new parts. Weird.
|
|
Hello,
It's to sort the minifig:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1124573
-Fred
|
|
It's because the number of unique sw figures has gone over 1000 so that people
can sort by itemID so now the battle droids will still show up first if sorted
that way.
They are lucky (and I mean, I'm lucky) that I wasn't uploading a ton
of sw minifigs.
I download my inventory and use VLOOKUP functions to find inventory locations
if a part I'm listing already exists in my inventory. I didn't notice
the change until I went to upload and it was consolidating on me. Luckily, it
was just the one star wars figure this time.
It would be nice if they handled something like this during the 10 minute down
time period instead of just willy nilly ...cough....cough... admin...cough russel
lol, just playin. Thanks for your contributions and dedication!
|
Yeah, there's no great time to do something like this since nightly and monthly
maintenance locks everybody out, including me.
But a couple of things to note - no old number was reused by another minifig.
So there should be no accidental mislistings as a result. The other thing is
that there is a permanent record of item number changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?viewYear=&viewMonth=&viewGeDate=&q=&viewStatus=A&itemType=&viewAction=I
And each catalog detail page has a log at the bottom showing changes to that
entry.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2019 20:32 | | Subject: | Re: Question for processing | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, pitterdrei writes:
| | Hello,
in certain Lego bricks, single row, e.g. No .: 3004, 3009, 3010 etc. are there
in the inner "pins" which made of solid material and which with hole - is a distinction
here or is this neglected in the item description?
Would appreciate an answer very much
greetings
pitterdrei
|
No, the BrickLink catalog does not distinguish between a hollow vs solid pin,
but you are free to add such information to your listings.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 14, 2019 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, alphadavy writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
It is a shame that the site cannot do something and step in and help sellers
and buyers here, by realising what they need. Some people want to sell and buy
complete series. I thought the primary goal of bricklink was to enable sales
of LEGO, so adding a "complete series" for each CMF or similar series would work
well for those people. Does it really matter that they were never sold that way
by LEGO? If need be, this information could always be added as a note to a complete
series entry.
|
+1
It's about time!
|
Here you go. Let's try it out.
Let me know if you think the random one needs a big question mark placed over
it. If people like this entry and use it, we'll go ahead and add the others.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2019 22:22 | | Subject: | Re: Complete set of Unikitty CMFs? | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| |
Is this supposed to be the entry for the complete set of 12 unique Unikitty collectible
minifigs? This whole entry is very confusing. The name says "complete random
set" and also "1 minifigure". The inventory shows 12 unique figs. Which is
it: a random set of 12? One random figure? A complete set of all the figs?
The price guide doesn't help much: the average prices seem too low for a
set of 12 and too high for a single fig. Judging by the individual prices it
appears that some sellers are treating this entry as a single random fig and
others are treating it as a a set of 12.
|
This is a known problem. This entry is *supposed* to be for ONE complete minifigure
(randomly chosen from the available 12), but because we do not have an entry
type for the complete set of 12 minifigures (yet), some sellers use this entry
type for that purpose as well.
|
Can we get a note on this entry that explicitly states this? As I noted above
the name is misleading as is the image showing all 12 figures.
|
I've added the note to this entry and will add similar notes to other entries
later. One of the other things I'm planning on doing is coming up with an
image that more clearly shows the random nature of the entry, e.g. an image of
the foil pack with a large question mark over it. If someone wants to give this
a shot, we will try a different image and see if that improves things.
| | | | The drawback of creating another entry type is that we already have multiple
ways these are sold, and we are concerned that it might add to the confusion:
|
It certainly wouldn't be more confusing than this entry as it currently stands.
| |
| | Am I better off creating a super lot if I want to sell a complete set of 12?
|
The site officially discourages sellers from using superlots for any purposes.
|
It does? Why? This is the first I have heard this. Is this stated somewhere?
|
| | I understand that some people abuse the superlot function by listing one item
for $0.01 and the others at an outrageous price. I have never done this and
I have sold several superlots at fair, discounted prices. If BrickLink doesn't
like super lots it should disable that feature.
|
Apparently there was a serious problem with people abusing the feature in connection
with Easy Buy, so superlots are now hidden unless buyers opt to see them. Superlots
have never been a favorite thing for a long time, probably because they are so
awkward to work with. But the site doesn't want to just cut things from people's
stores, either, so the feature has been left there for buyers and sellers that
want it.
| | How would you recommend selling a complete set of CMFs?
|
Personally, I would do what these other sellers have done and list the whole
set under the random entry. As long as you describe things clearly in your notes,
buyers will understand that they are paying for a whole set. This is one of those
areas where the average prices must be deduced from scanning listings or sold
listings instead of the calculated averages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2019 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: New items not in the catalogue | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, DarylB writes:
| | Please could you tell me how to add new items to the catalogue, in particular
how to allocate a 'pb' number to the part number for parts that are printed
or stickered. Thank you. Regards Daryl.
|
Thanks, Daryl.
Here is the reference page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
For patterned (pb) parts, all parts of the same mold are grouped together and
numbered sequentially. To see the latest additions, simply search by item number,
using the part number plus the "pb" plus an asterisk wild card (*), e.g. 3001pb*
Then sort the search results by item number, with the direction "down". See the
images attached below.
If you can't figure it out, please submit the item anyway with whatever item
number you can, and we will make the correction for you. A good image is really
the thing we are after the most.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 12:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 857-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 3 Part 3739 Light Gray Wheel 24 x 43 Technic
* Delete 3 Part 3740 Black Tire 24 x 43 Technic
* Add 1 Part 3736 Light Gray Technic, Steering Pulley Large
* Change 3 Part Light Gray 3739c01 Wheel 24 x 43 Technic with Black Tire 24 x 43 Technic (3739 / 3740) {Counterpart to Regular}
|
These big wheels came assembled in these early technic sets as the design of
the box confirms this too.
|
Yes, they came assembled in the sets, but this was for display purposes. In the
instructions it is very clear that they are considered separate parts. As per
the rules, this means they should not be listed assembled in BrickLink inventories:
Part Assemblies - Part assemblies should be included in the Regular Items section
of set inventories only when the assemblies in question come pre-assembled in
the set box. For example, 2429c01 should be included in set inventories rather
than 2429 and 2430. There are some exceptions to this rule, such as certain large
animal assemblies. Another exception is when an item is pre-assembled for the
purpose of box display.
| | I owned this set in my childhood and one light gray 3736 was included. At the
time, I thought this part was included for adding a motor to the second motor.
See photo attached. But I didn't know the inventory of 960 or 870 motor sets
and this part was also included there.
|
I also owned this set and did not have an extra steering wheel (that I can remember).
The steering wheel shown in the instructions comes from the motor pack.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 7, 2019 02:21 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Well, now I can understand why the StormChaser is confused.
If the large image slot is going away, and the large images are going to then
slot into what now is the small slot...
...and I get keeping the small slot because the small slot had ALL colors of
a piece where the large slot typically had one "representative" image per piece
and not per color...
...then I think the solution would be to leave the small images as they were
(as those were the large images slotted down into the small slot) and change
the credit to the appropriate contributor.
If I understand the plan, which I may not, and apparently is also not clear to
more than just me, the plan is to replace all the small images with large images
as they become available. You're keeping the small slot because that slot
is already prepped to contain multiple colors of a piece where the large slot
is not...and you have small images of more pieces than you have large images.
I imagine that you'd lose ~70% of the images if you kept the large set and
abandoned the small set...because you don't have all colors in the large
set.
Right? So I can see the logic of that strategy.
|
Yes. Essentially, that is it.
| | Still.
That leaves me with these questions:
1. Why plug my small images back into the small slot? Why not leave the large-image-put-into-the-small-slot
(as this is the goal) and change the contributor? Seems like you're going
to have to go back and do that at some point.
|
There are two different banks of "small" images. There is the original bank which
contains your small images, and this is where the credit on those minifig small
images came from. The images from this bank still show up in Forum macro tags
and other older pages. They are fixed at 80 x 60, and we have no mechanism to
change them, other than if we reupload an image as the main image, and then new
thumbnail will be written over the old one.
The other bank of "small" images can be larger than even the original "large"
image, and the original "large" image was copied into this slot in the case of
minifigs, sets, etc. (basically, anything that could not have images in multiple
colors). When this copy script was run (this was a one-time function), the credit
was NOT transferred.
In cases where the large and small image were the same, or the large and small
images both had the same contributor, there was (and is) no attribution issue.
But there is an issue with large/small pairs that had different contributors.
And fortunately that is not typical.
The whole rationale behind this image unification is because the management does
not like the disconnect between a thumbnail image that shows one thing and a
large image that shows another. It is fine to have a thumbnail that shows only
a portion of the large image. But jumping to an entirely new image is considered
non-standard and distasteful.
| | 2. All the legs images in question are recent contributions, and while they may
have slotted into the small slot correctly, that doesn't answer why the large
images are getting mis-attributed. And will the mis-attribution continue?
|
There is no attribution issue with the legs images. You are just interpreting
the credits wrongly. However, because your images are in almost every case superior
to what we have, and because we prefer photos for printed parts, I uploaded your
images to both the old and the new slot and put all other images in the additional
images slot.
So right now, all catalog detail pages of those printed leg parts will show your
username under both small and large credits. But when the large image credit
slot is replaced by the additional credit slot, then the person who submitted
the primary additional image (the "default" additional image, if you will) will
have their username there instead, in cases where there is an additional image.
| | 3. Are there other images in the system that are similarly mis-attributed?
|
As I mentioned in another post, there are thousands of images attributed to "Admin"
that belong to other people. We change the credit when they are claimed.
Other than that, I am sure there are plenty of cases where someone helped another
upload an image and the credit never got correctly assigned. Or sometimes a user
tweaks an image an reuploads it under their account - normally in that situation
we will credit the original user, but I'm sure there have been cases where
it didn't happen.
In short, in a database this size, I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot
of errors with attribution, just like there are a lot of errors in other areas.
| | 4. I probably do have large images of many pieces for which previously there
were only small slots. However, in the case of the small minifig images in question
here, those large images were uploaded to the system at one time and rejected
in favor of another (usually existing) image for whatever reason. If they were
rejected before, why would I bother to go through the effort of finding all these
things and upload them to have them be rejected a second time?
|
It's hard for me to understand why an image of yours would get rejected,
but it does appear that in each of these cases, your small image (80 x 60) was
approved but your full size one wasn't.
These are all minifig images, so perhaps they didn't show the minifig built
exactly the right way, or didn't show front and back. The images could have
been rejected for any number of reasons.
However, a couple things have changed dramatically in the catalog since you uploaded
these images the first time. First, we have an additional image slot and we are
not afraid to use it. So if a good image comes in, we don’t have to completely
throw out someone else’s image to use yours.
The second thing that has changed is that high quality images with a white background
are greatly preferred over standard shots. Nice images were always appreciated,
but the emphasis was on correctness, not visual appeal.
So for example, the first minifig on the list currently has a large image showing
the neckpiece removed from the minifigure so as to show the printing on the torso.
In the past it was considered more desirable to be explicit about all details
of the figure, but now the emphasis is on a presentation of the minifigure that
will help sell it to today’s consumer.
So in short, we think that your previously rejected images would stand a good
chance of being accepted today. And when in comes to parts, you have many, many
80 x 60 images in the BL system that could easily be upgraded to a larger size.
| | I hope everyone understands I'm dispassionate about having my images included.
It's not an ego thing. I am concerned that I and other contributors are doing
what amounts to quite a bit of work, and there's a bug or flaw in the system
somewhere...or some bit of information hasn't been communicated appropriately...and
this problem persists, which may result in you having to go back to the contributors
and ask for a re-upload, and so on. And we're all chasing our tails. And
each other's tails.
In any event, I appreciate your efforts here. But you'll understand my reluctance
to comb through the back catalog of images I've created (or create new) and
upload them and so on without some assurance that they're going to be managed
efficiently and appropriately. I just see no sense in adding load to an existing
problem and I'd guess you don't want to be constantly manually fixing
all of it.
Thanks for the "fix" but I'm just not sure that the "why"...the reason for
things being out of whack...have been addressed as you shared no comment on that.
|
I understand the concern about mismanagement of images. But the site has actually
not lost anything or corrupted it. The attribution problems with certain minifig
images are all going to get ironed out anyway as we prepare to deprecate the
large image slot. If anything, we need to update the way credits are shown, and
make sure that contributors know exactly why an image is rejected.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 108 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| Happy New Year to you as well! I'll answer these questions and those in the
other post directly. I appreciate the detective work you have put into this so
far.
In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Happy New Year.
This image discrepancy thing does appear throughout the catalog.
It looks like any time there was a condition where the large image contributor
and the small image contributor were not the same, the large image contributor's
large image has slotted into the small image contributor's small image gallery.
At least one of mine is in Randy's gallery, a number of other people's
images are in Jen's gallery...it goes on.
|
The problem of attribution has been an issue for a long time. The site's
founder had attribution issues due to the credit system not being in place before
the site started accepting images. So we now have thousands of images credited
to "Admin" that really belong to someone else. Whenever people claim them we
tag the image with the username.
However, there are some new issues as well that stemmed from transferring large
banks of images to different slots for what is known broadly as the "image project",
the goal which was to unify the large and small image system to a single primary
image for each item (or color of each item) and use the additional image slot
for cases where more images were considered useful.
Like I said earlier, I wasn't here when most item types were transferred
over, so I don't know the exact procedure that was used. I only worked with
parts and I did them all manually.
But I have observed that for other item types like minifigs, the username was
not transfered when an image was copied to a new slot. So the old username is
paired with a "new" image. That is where the problem lies, and you are correct
- we need to do something about this.
| | I have a suspicion there's some other related gremlin somewhere in the works,
but I can't fathom it other than to note that sometimes the large images
are also somehow awry.
|
Regarding current manual functionality that admins use on a daily basis, we do
have some quirks backstage still that need to be ironed out. But none of these
involve attribution problems and overall it is very reliable when used in a specified
manner.
I can see where it appears to be credited to you, but actually it isn't.
See image 1. Image 2 shows the view from the admin page, and image 3 shows the
credits on the old colors page.
It depends where you navigate from. I personally do not like dynamic content
like this (I would rather it show the same view always, regardless of where someone
came from.) But this at some point was determined to be more helpful to new users,
so this is what we have.
Sometimes the large image space is empty depending on the device you are using.
I notice this when using my phone, and people have reported similar problems
with tablets. That is a bug and I'll write it up if I can reproduce it. I
suspect it is a cache issue.
I have added screenshots for this as well (see images 4 and 5). Medium Blue is
currently the default. Your red image is the Legacy image.
This is an excellent example of the catalog image system in flux. For this part
a decision needs to be made whether we consider it a "standard part" or an "early
variant". Because the variant differences can be seen so clearly from renders
and because the differences are great enough that this may not even qualify as
a "variant", I would consider this to be a borderline situation - hence why a
decision has not been made yet.
If we go with "standard part", then the preferred color images will be renders.
I would then trim the current images so they are optimized for showing in small
spaces (or accept replacement renders from someone who routinely makes these
sorts of adjustments) and I would move your image (red photo) to the additional
images section, which retains all credit and color info on the admin page. The
Legacy Image would then be replaced by the render in the default color to prepare
for the eventual deprecation of the Large/Legacy image slot.
If we go with "early variant" I would copy your image to the red color image
slot and select red as the default color. Then, as photos are submitted, they
would replace the renders that current occupy most color slots. The renders may
or may not be retained in the Additional Images section. When the Legacy Image
slot is retired, your red image in the Legacy slot would be removed (we never
actually delete things) but it would be retained in the color images section
at full size.
The Legacy image credit at the bottom of the page will be changed eventually
to Additional image credit, and additional image credits will also be shown on
other pages.
I have gone ahead and just changed the default color to Tan and copied your image
into the Tan slot. There is no reason to have the white image as default when
it is only 80 x 60 and has a non-white background.
You also have a Light Gray image for this part that is 80 x 60, but if you submitted
a larger size of that image, we would use that in place of the current default
color because it only shows one of the part.
In general, we want single item photos for the color slots to avoid any confusion
as to how many items the buyer will get. Multiple item / comparison images are
best suited as additional images where people can study them.
Another thing we could do is crop out one of the engines in your photo for the
color image and then use the full two-item image as an additional image.
But all of these adjustments take time and it's going to be a while before
we get all the images the way we want them. And a lot of it depends on the images
we receive in the meantime.
| | I thought the attribution dynamically changed on this page when you changed the
selected color of the piece from the popdown, but right now I can't find
where that's happening...
|
No, the credit information is static and a direct copy from the old catalog detail
page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=30358&useold=Y
| | but it may be effected with some pieces and not
others. In any event, the behavior on this page is inconsistent and seems to
have something to do with whether or not there's a "default" small image...which
is probably a misnomer. For example, as far as I can tell there are no "small"
images for
* | | 650 Hinge Coupling Nylon - Two Connected 2 x 2 Plates
Parts: Hinge |
Can't figure out how to back-trace any of these pictures to their creators...
...hmm...guessing that the large image attribution is for whatever image occupies
that second vertical thumbnail position there...
|
Yes, the second thumbnail position shows the Legacy/Large Image. Image 6 shows
what is behind the scenes for this part. You can't see the additional image
credit yet from any public page, but we of course want that to change.
| | Some of this might just be a UI problem where something isn't coded properly,
and with the 53588pb01 I doubt there is a gray version at all, just a dbg (this
was hashed about in the forum not too long ago).
|
We have left the other image in the Dark Gray slot until the inventories get
corrected. One way to accelerate action on an issue like this is to submit inventory
changes for the part - DG to DBG. Then it will be in a queue somewhere.
| | Anyway, I've spent about as much time as I care to looking at this issue.
All I really know is something or things has gone wrong somewhere, and I suggest
you want to sort it out before any more images get put into the system and possibly
mispositioned.
Also, I don't want to be wrongly credited for someone else's contribution.
That's just not right.
You and the StormChaser may want to consider holding off adding any new images
until you can sort out what's going on.
|
So there are two elements here. First, the general everyday work that is being
done to transform the system from the old version to the new version. This work
is going along fine and there is no reason to believe that ultimately credits
will accidentally be given to the wrong person.
The second issue is the large-scale imports/transfers/overwrites (whatever you
wish to call them) that were done between June of 2016 and May of 2017. These
were one-time actions and will not be repeated. So whatever went wrong with the
credit tranfer will not happen again. All that is left at this point is for someone
to go back and clean up the issue.
Now that this second issue has surfaced as a problem, I will need to add it to
the list of things to accomplish in the larger image project. I'll let you
know when I have fixed the images related to your username and hopefully we'll
see how to do a clean sweep to fix those for other users as well.
Again, thanks for your time spent finding what was wrong and writing it up. It
makes a big difference to have people actively working with us to solve stuff
that needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2019 00:07 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 136 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm noticing my "large" images for these items are showing up as being credited
to other contributors.
Kevin1990
|
[p=970c00pb099]
[p=970c00pb075]
[p=970c00pb195]
[p=970c00pb337]
(red)
| |
And I'm credited for these "small" images which aren't mine...and no
idea whose they are.
|
[m=cty057]
[m=sw016]
[m=sw049]
| |
(I thought the whole "small image" thing was kaput some time last year...no?)
If this is human error, that's one thing. If there are systemic issues or
database corruption or something else going on, then it probably should be looked
into before it gets worse.
|
Thanks for reporting this. We want to hear from people when things don't
seem right!
Regarding the first batch (minifigure legs), all of your images were indeed stored
in the "small image" slot, which is good, because the large image slot will be
going away. But I just went through these and added your images to the large
image slot for the time being so people will see them everywhere.
There is no problem with the system with this first batch. This is a simple question
of temporary assignment. I had planned to completely hide the large image credit
at this point, but as long as it's still around, we'll try to keep both
slots updated.
The second batch is more troubling. Before I took the reigns of the image project
in May of 2017, there were several attempts to solve some image issues an "easier"
way (i.e. not through the regular upload forms). This resulted in some unexpected
and often unfortunate situations, and it is a prime example of why I am very
reluctant to recommend ANY automatic processes when handling BrickLink's
data.
The images you see (all minifigures) are indeed not yours, but I believe your
username was attached to that slot because at one time you did have an image
there, probably a replacement image for the image now present.
I don't know if you keep files of your submitted images. I know many users
don't, but I still recommend it in case there is an issue like this. But
if you do have such a record, please check if you have images for any minifigures
in the list you provided.
If you do have them, please upload and we will correct the situation through
the regular forms. If not, I will try to find the images on an older version
of the site and I'll take care of it manually.
I'll check all these entries again, but I believe I have taken care of all
username issues you have presented today.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Dec 18, 2018 09:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 40388-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, pikachu3 writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Very Light Bluish Gray to Light Aqua} 20375 Mini Doll, Cape Cloth, Friends, Tapered with Curved Bottom and 1 Small Top Hole
Comments from Submitter:
VLBG has been retired for a while. https://brickset.com/sets/40388-1/Mini-Doll-Dress-Up-Kit
|
There is a lot messed up in the catalog with this cape and some others. This
request will take a little time to sort out. Thanks for your patience.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I added the cape in that color because it was a dead-on match to VLBG, but I
think it's better to go with the official Lego color in this case, at least
until we come up with a better solution.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6393-1 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
OK, I spent a number of hours on this one, so here goes! 
This one is tough as there are two possible scenarios that I have come down to
with everything that I could find out about this set:
Scenario 1:
The set contained four plant stems and *at least* four sets of red flowers. Evidence
to suggest this are the box photos showing four sets of stems/flowers, the instruction
manual showing four sets of stems/flowers being built, and the photo of the sealed
set which you posted that definitely shows *at least* four sets of red flowers.
The current inventory contains four plant stems but only contains three sets
of red flowers. In this scenario, the inventory should be updated to have four
sets of red flowers with no extra.
|
I would think this option is closest to the truth. We don't really have a
sealed source available, and we would need several of those showing that the
parts never came. There would be no reason for Lego to take a set of flowers
out of a set. They weren't running out of them and they are a fairly standard
part.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 17:42 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
|
Of the parts, over 200 of them are from the Modulex Decorated Tile category.
If we can't find images for those and there are no listings or wanted list
entries, I suggest we do a little pruning.
|
Why would you want to do that?
I agree that it would be better to have images, but why would anyone want to
remove information from our database unless the parts do not actually exist?
There are better solutions than deleting items.
|
If, with all the resources we have on BrickLink (and by "resources" I mean people
with knowledge and extensive collections), we can't generate an image or
at least some interest in an item during a period of over 9 years, there is serious
doubt in my mind if that item does actually exist.
I'm saying this specifically concerning Modulex, because I believe many of
those entries were created based on their presence in a catalog from which special
orders could be placed. If no one ever ordered a certain font in a certain color,
would these letter tiles ever have been produced?
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 14:16 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
|
Of the parts, over 200 of them are from the Modulex Decorated Tile category.
If we can't find images for those and there are no listings or wanted list
entries, I suggest we do a little pruning.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 02:46 | | Subject: | Re: Unofficial LEGO color guide | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, pikachu3 writes:
| | In Catalog, Nordbart writes:
| | In Catalog, Abels_Bricks writes:
| | I did read the reviews but I managed to get it new from amazon for £6.07 hardcover,
I wanted it for the color definitions and general info not really for the photos.
|
Did you know about this site?
http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html
nordbart
|
It's not a terrible book (and I think he has a new edition coming with better
printing), but he doesn't credit the people who worked to research and compile
this color data in the first place.  It's nifty that he used a colorimeter
but the rest of the information is freely available online.
I can't complain too much, it's not as if I've updated my own list
recently. Need to get on that...
|
If there is a new edition in the works, I would encourage the author to proofread
ALL the reference numbers in the book. There are four different numbering systems
used, and the current edition looks as if there were substantial changes made
to one part of the book (the part with all the photos) without updating some
of the reference pages (the color group comparisons at the beginning).
For example, if you look up Orange on p. 7, it says "Bright Orange 40". "40"
does not correspond to any number for Orange - it is not a BrickLink ID or LEGO
ID, not an Unofficial Color Guide ID, or an Unofficial Color Guide page number.
It would also help to remove all BrickLink Color ID numbers. The only purpose
they have is to show the order in which the colors were added to the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 107-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Milky White 3706 Technic, Axle 6 {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 3 to 3}
* Change 2 Part Black 3706 Technic, Axle 6 {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 3 to 3}
* Change 1 Part White 996bc96gray Electric, Wire 4.5V with four Light Gray 1-prong Connectors with Cross-Cut Pin, 96 Studs Long {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 2 to 2}
Comments from Submitter:
Wire 996bc96gray was found in a sealed set 107-1 together with black technic axles.
|
The Milky White axles were the first to be found in this set. Black axles were
not available until 1977. Also, I do remember them distinctly in this set, since
these were the among the only white axles I had growing up.
I do believe we are keeping the early variant as Regular except for unusual circumstances
where the variant was clearly a leftover outlier.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 22:43 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 3627-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Randy what your thoughts about it?
|
I did a lot of my own research last night on this set, and I pretty much came
to the same conclusions as you. I could not find any real good proof, just a
bunch of used sets and box images. I think it is highly likely that the set did
come with two sets of red flowers and five stems, but I just wish I could prove
that assumption a bit better. As it stands, I cannot, so I am leaning towards
no changes to the inventory unless someone steps forward with some better proof.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Glad that we agree
So lets only wait two-three days maybe somebody could provide here better prove
if not request will be reject.
|
I have uploaded two images cropped from original images at Brickset. The first
is from a catalog and it shows that there are three clusters of flowers - two
stacked and one single. Each stacked cluster has one stemfull of white flowers
and one stemfull of red flowers.
Looking at other Fabuland sets, each stem used in a set always had three of the
same color of flower. The "stacking" feature of these flowers was undoubtedly
engineered into the parts because stacked flowers were used from the very beginning:
Because of the spacing between the flowers, they alternated lower / upper / lower
/ upper, etc when the stems were stacked. So if the stems each had a full complement
of a different color, the colors would also alternate, which is what we see in
the first image.
The second image is the box cover, but it's a bigger image than the one upthread
and easier to see. I have labeled all the flowers and stems.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 18:07 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | So, if I were to supply images of all of the unreleased BASF and Bayer 3001's
that I have on my colour palette, they would be accepted?
|
I imagine those would be for this catalog entry, right?
I don't know of any reason why we would not accept additional photographs
for that catalog entry.
|
You are right, because I can see that all of them except 1 are renders, so they
need to be removed! 
Paul
|
Actually, that is an exception. I have archived all the original 2 x 4 brick
renders from the early days of the site and used them as the images for this
entry.
Part of the reason is because this is an exceptional undetermined entry by its
very nature, and sellers should upload custom photos for each lot. One photo
per color cannot cover all the possible variations of this entry.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | A new catalog project has begun:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
As you can see, the (Other) project is now complete and LordSkylark's project
is temporarily on hold.
The fifth catalog project is to remove images which are renders and which show
parts which do not exist in the colors shown. There are estimated to be 1,600
of these renders left in the catalog and there is no easy way for me to locate
them.
I would imagine the majority of them are for basic, undecorated parts. Please
post here with micro tags for the parts which need rendered images removed and
specify the colors. I will review the findings and remove the renders where
appropriate. Please note that this project will not be removing any actual
photos of parts.
Thank you all for your assistance.
|
So basically at this stage, if a part does not appear in an actual set, then
bricklink wants an actual physical photo to verify that it does in fact exist?
|
Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 19:07 | | Subject: | Re: This item has already been reserved by member | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, _djm writes:
| | In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories, _djm writes:
Yes, I tried to inventory this some time back and got the same message. If I
remember correctly, I reported it as a bug and was told it had been fixed.
|
The bug preventing it from being inventoried is fixed, but reserving the item
still has the bug. The reserve function I believe was part of another bug report
that isn't finished yet.
But yes, it can be inventoried now, when selecting "Gear" as item type.
|
Via the https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvAddSel.asp page or elsewhere? When
I try that page and click "verify items" button, it shows me the error message
"This Gear has been reserved by and is being worked on by another member".
David
|
No this is yet another bug. I'll report it.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 03:13 | | Subject: | Re: This item has already been reserved by member | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories, _djm writes:
Yes, I tried to inventory this some time back and got the same message. If I
remember correctly, I reported it as a bug and was told it had been fixed.
|
The bug preventing it from being inventoried is fixed, but reserving the item
still has the bug. The reserve function I believe was part of another bug report
that isn't finished yet.
But yes, it can be inventoried now, when selecting "Gear" as item type.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
A couple from me:
1) Delete all rendered part images in the catalog that don't exist as real
parts. I estimate there are about 1600 images to delete, maybe more as people
discover them.
2) Add up to 75 "early" minifigs to the catalog to finally resolve the issue
of the solid stud head. We would start from 1978 minifigs and proceed forward
in time.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 25, 2018 18:02 | | Subject: | We have a new Catalog Admin! | | Viewed: | 296 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| Hello everyone,
We are pleased to announce that we have made another appointment. StormChaser,
who was appointed as Inventories Administrator last year, has now been promoted
to Catalog Administrator.
This is an important step for BrickLink. We haven't had a Catalog Admin appointment
for over nine years, and this is the first time someone has moved from the Inventories
side of the system to the Catalog side.
We believe StormChaser is highly qualified for this position. In addition to
an outstanding year as an Inventories Admin, he has had years of intense experience
with every area of the BrickLink Catalog. He has made many thousands of corrections,
uploaded an enormous amount of new data, and has solved a number of LEGO mysteries
over the years. So we're very pleased he has agreed to accept this position,
and we look forward to his activity in this new area.
We will be be making another appointment soon to fill his former position as
Inventories Administrator.
Russell
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 25, 2018 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig scd010 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Metallic Gold to Tan} 90462pb03 Minifig, Headgear Headdress Mummy (Type 2) with Dark Red Stripes Thin Pattern
Comments from Submitter:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1111900
Image color and PCC have been changed to tan.
|
I really think the xref should also be changed so that sellers' inventories
are not incorrect. Just making these changes leaves all inventory categorized
under a wrong color now.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I see that xref was changed already
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?viewActionType=X
|
Weird. Under the "Items for Sale" column in the "Color Info" tab, it still shows
"Metallic Gold" while the "On Wanted List" and "Known Colors" columns have changed.
Randy
|
It's a cache issue. When the BL system resets tonight, the Metallic Gold
will turn to Tan.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 17, 2018 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7930-1 | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0550 White Minifig, Head Female SW Aurra Sing, Large Green Eyes and Gray Lips Pattern - Stud Recessed (Alternate) (match ID 2)
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0552 Sand Green Minifig, Head Dual Sided Alien with SW Embo, Large Yellow Eyes / Black Lines Pattern - Stud Recessed (Alternate) (match ID 3)
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0554 Light Flesh Minifig, Head Dual Sided Alien with SW Sugi, Large Brown Eyes, Red Lips and Cheek Lines / Purple Hair Pattern - Stud Recessed (Alternate) (match ID 4)
Comments from Submitter:
This is an experiment to add heads variants currently without being connected to any minifigs or sets and being alternates to them, to sets inventories as alternate part.
More here
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1110869 and in the following answers
If nobody will be against it we will move forward with this project.
If sombeody against it please share your thoughts.
I will leave this change request open for a few days before accepting it or rejecting it.
|
There is a precedent for adding "orphaned" items to inventories. There was a
rule for a long while (that is still somewhat in place) that inventories that
spanned the 2003/2004 color change would be inventoried entirely in new colors
or old colors, but not both. This was because of the crazy number of possible
alternate matches in a set like this:
However, later there was a complaint about certain colors that should have a
presence in inventories but didn't because of that rule, so an exception
was made for orphaned parts, and you can see them in the alternates section of
the Star Destroyer inventory - mostly LBG.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 13, 2018 18:39 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9267-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | I'd give it to you, but it looks like you had one a year and a half ago and
still have it if you wanted it.
|
That's kind of you, but I do still have the one I used to make the catalog
entry. I found it in a new Duplo set from around that same time.
No instructions for the set, though? The set has an instructions entry. If
it didn't come with instructions, which certainly seems likely to have been
the case, then we need to get rid of the instructions entry for the set.
There's one seller with instructions for sale right now, but that was likely
from blindly parting out the set.
|
Yeah, no instructions. And what would the instructions say? You can't build
anything out of this without a tub of bricks.
|
The instructions entry has been removed.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 16:10 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
For the instances of this assembly where the top color is different than the
base, do these all need to be added to the catalog individually? For example:
|
Please go here and look at the catalog items pending approval from me and the
images pending approval from me:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPend.asp
If you (or anyone else) can provide images for the ones I couldn't, then
please do.
| | Looking at it a bit further, I guess it's actually not too bad. Since the
top would be the only fixed color, there's only a max of 16 new entries that
would (currently) need to be added.
|
I only counted 14 new entries. After you take a look at what I have pending,
please let me know which two I missed.
|
I always forget about the pending catalog page. I should have realized you were
already on top of things! There's a few of them I can probably take pictures
of. I'll try and do that tonight if I can find them. I know I can at least
do the Brown one if nothing else.
I came up with 16 possible new items just by looking at the number of different
colored top plates there are. Upon further review on my part (which I should
have done originally), the Maersk and Sand Green colors are matched, so that
just leaves the 14 that you already came up with.
Josh
|
I've been on the sidelines of this issue this time around (I have previously
been right in the middle of it) but I have to mention that this little 1 x 2
hinge is something I've long thought was a worthy counterpart, because of
how many of them I have destroyed trying to get them apart:
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | This part and its accompanying variant have spelled trouble for a number of years
now in the catalog, and finally a few folks decided to do something about it:
* | | 44567 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
First we added the definitive non-grooved variant, which turned out to be the
most recent one.
And here is the really important line in this message:
the A and B versions of this part were just switched today
So if you've labeled bags containing this variant you will need to reverse
this numbering.
Renumbering is never taken lightly, but in this case we felt we had to do it
because of 2 other entries added with nearly the same situation - early grooved
version followed by a non-grooved version. Quite the opposite from what we know
to be true with standard tiles.
Thanks for your patience. Resetting the numbers to reflect the correct chronological
order will save a lot of misunderstanding in the future.
|
I think it is not wise to put some meaning to an itemID. So the change of the
a and b version should not have happened, in my opinion. Even if in other parts
the itemIDs were assigned chronologically.
|
BrickLink ID numbers are "smart" numbers - they aren't a series of digits
randomly assigned when an entry is formed. We have those types of numbers internally,
btw, and maybe one of the things we could or should do is to make those numbers
available on the main catalog page for every entry.
The -a, -b, -c pattern is so prevalent in the catalog that even if we put a large
disclaimer on the Help pages stating that a chronological order should not be
inferred, people would still assume so. 99 percent of -a, -b, -c variants are
chronological, and it actually is a great help in giving people an instant understanding
of the relationship between variants, especially when the auto-generated dates
on the catalog page can be so misleading at times.
| | Also I think the catalog should keep the 'undetermined' versions of parts.
Because: -not all set inventories have the specified mold varients
-not all sellers want to differentiate between small mold varients, and they
should be able to (or must) list as undetermined.
-not all buyers care about the mold varient, they should be able to buy 'undetermined'.
(Ideally if you choose undetermined all versions would show up)
|
Ideally we decide as a site what we are going to distinguish and not distinguish
and every seller falls in line and helps us uphold a site-wide standard that
buyers can rely on.
The problem is that there *are* variants in the catalog that are not worth the
hassle, and over the years this has resulted in many sellers justifiably rejecting
these distinctions.
I think there is room for a middle ground where for a certain group of variants
sellers can opt to flag their listings for one variant or another, and the listings
would encompass both sellers who distinguish and others who don't.
But for the majority of parts, we need a site-wide standard. To achieve this
we need a joint effort from sellers and the catalog. On the catalog side, we
need to decommission some entries that are needlessly precise. The classic example
of that (and it has already been done) is the headlight brick with slot:
[p=4070a]
Sellers, on the other hand, need to come to the table ready to sort some variants
they may not believe in personally. A great example for that would be the standard
1 x 2 tile:
No seller should be listing the old non-grooved style mixed in with the new grooved
style. They look terrible together and the old version can be very hard to remove.
in this case, we as a site need to make a clear distinction between the old and
the new.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 12:25 | | Subject: | Re: Request update inventory on set 70567 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, Henk61 writes:
| | In Inventories, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Henk61 writes:
| | Hi,
Is it possible that the inventory of the set 70567 can be completed?
On 5 minifigs I am unable to see the parts because the "item consists of" is
not available.
|
I don't have this set, so I am unable to complete the inventory. The submitter
of the set inventory did not add inventories for any of the figures - the existing
inventories of the other figures in that set were done by five different people.
There has been some discussion behind the scenes about requiring that minifigure
inventories be completed before the set inventory is approved. However, this
is not currently a requirement.
The best I can tell you is that I will try to look at uninventoried 2018 minifigures
when I get some spare time and see what I can do about adding their inventories.
|
Hi,
Is there any chance that this set wil be updated?
|
You must mean the new Ninjago City Docks set:
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2018 20:15 | | Subject: | Re: The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, bagelboybugle writes:
| | In Catalog, BrickCompulsion writes:
| | Can understand why the change
May I suggest that you send a message to everyone that has listed the variants
in case they miss or simply don’t read the forum
I know I would be frustrated if I got beg feedback or sent out the wrong parts
through no fault of my own and had to pay postage or refund to put the error
right
|
Totally agree, in this scenario I would switch all listings to undetermined,
email all affected sellers and then its the sellers choice whether to check their
varients or leave it listed as undermined
|
We can't switch everything to undetermined because many sellers have already
sorted their lots and this would undo all their work. Sorted parts will still
remain under the correct listings, so it's not a question of the listings
being changed, just a different label being used.
It would be good though to notify sellers, but before doing that, there are a
handful of other item numbers that need to be switched, and we could do it all
in one go. Please use this thread to let us know of any other item numbers that
would benefit from such a switch.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: Supplying a set's inventory | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Inventories, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Classicsmiley writes:
| | | | First thing: that 7-digit number is called a Part Color Code or PCC. These are
unique codes assigned by TLG which identify a particular part in a specific color.
|
For quite some time I've wondered why the term "PCC" is used on Bricklink,
instead of the LEGO-Company term "element id."
Does anyone know?
|
PCC describes the code better. The first PCC's were literally a combination
of a 4-digit part code and a 2-digit color code. Some of those original PCC's
are still being used:
3024+02
3024+21
3024+23
3024+24
The new 7-digit codes aren't "smart" like that, but they do represent the
part in a specific color, as opposed to the 5-digit mold number. PCC is easier
to read and type, too.
|
I think the question was “Why ‘PCC’ and not ‘Element ID,’ TLG’s term?”
As TLG calls PCCs “Element ID”s, the mould number being a “Design ID.”
|
PCC is more descriptive of the code than "Element ID".
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 13:50 | | Subject: | Re: Just how many pieces ARE in LEGO 10214? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, SteveDJ writes:
| | I was Googling for some pictures of the LEGO Tower Bridge, set 10214. What I
find interesting, is that there are two different versions of the set BOX --
with one version showing 4287 pieces, and another version showing 4295 pieces.
The catalog entry here shows 4287. Yet, there is no supplemental information
as to what happened?
If anything, the box art WITHOUT the tree in the corner, but instead showing
the Expert label/icon, looks like the more recent box. And it is the one showing
4295 pieces.
Is the catalog entry here not up to date?
|
Take a look at the note at the foot of the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=10214-1
For more information on re-designed sets, see this Brickset Bricklist:
https://brickset.com/sets/list-18333
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: Error creating inventory change request | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Inventories, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog Inventories, normann1974 writes:
| | I've tried creating the inventory change request shown in the attached image.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong? The system rejects my form by saying that
there's a problem with entry 4 ("Entry #4: New Match ID is same as Existing
Match ID."). But the item has no match ID yet, and the match ID I entered is
not in use yet. Is it because extras can't have match IDs?
/Jan
|
Check this inventory how it is constructed
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=79118-1
Extras can have match ID but it must be new number. and in this form you have
"3" match ID three times.
As you can see one sword w regular is conected with unique ID with altenate for
him. Extra one must have new unique ID and second alternate must be added to
match extra I hope I explained it clearly
|
More simply speaking if you want do add alternate for an extra then part must
be repeated in alternate section with new ID. One connected with regular and
one connected with extra. This is currently the only way to do it.
|
I don't understand why you state that I used match ID 3 three times. It's
only there twice in my form.
It seems to me that you're explaining exactly what I've done. I used
match ID 2 twice (one in the regular section, one in the alternate) and match
ID 3 twice (one in the extra section, one in the alternate).
/Jan
|
In my opinion there is definitly a bug in inv change request formula. You can't
add match ID to extra when this is the only change for it, but when I also change
it from extra to regular (see the first screenshot), everything went well (see
second screenshoot). So I tested my hypothesis on second extra to change (there
was change in part quantity). So I added only "4" as matching ID and see the
result on third and fourth screenshoot, the same error. So it looks like you
can't add match ID when part stays extra it must be changed from extra to
regular simultaneously.
But we can moved it back to the extra section after approving your request.
So this is the soultion for you for now. Add this change request with changing
this part also extra to regular and when approving it we will move it where it
belongs
BTW I remember that recently I had the same situation when adding my own change
request for something, the same problem, but I didn't took care much because
I could fix it after approving.
|
Originally I believe match IDs on extras were not allowed, and only recently
has this become the practice, and only in cases where the Inv Admin determines
to handle the problem in that way.
However, this is by far the trickiest form on the site and I have a request in
to remove the logic that gives error messages for duplicated data. It would be
far better if the system just ignored such data.
The ironic thing is that the form actually *requires* duplicated data with the
Item Type field. There is no need for this field as the Item Type can always
be determined from the Item Number. A request has been submitted to remove this
obstacle as well.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 14, 2018 12:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 140-2 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Andrews__Brick writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 3 Part 7049b White Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels Holder Old and Trans-Clear Bottom
* Add 2 Part x486a Black Tread Small - Old - Wedge Shaped Treads (30 tread 'links'
|
That's amusing . . . the system converted a portion of the part title to
an emoticon.
What is your source for these requests for this set?
|
Robert
I suppose instructions.
There are 4 models to build:
http://www.peeron.com/scans/140-2/
The 2nd one use 4x [p=4049b]
http://www.peeron.com/scans/140-2/7
The 4th one use 4x
http://www.peeron.com/scans/140-2/15
So a change is needed for the follow parts:
= from 1pc to 4pcs
= from 2pcs to 4pcs
and also the alternate
= from 2pcs to 4pcs
Stefaan
|
When this page was first written, it looked like this (see attached image). It
turned out the image wasn't the problem, but the quote-close parentheses
at the end of the item name [' )].
They were corrected simply by retyping the characters into the item name field.
We are looking for more of these quote-close parentheses cases, so if you happen
to see one that causes this problem with the macro tags, please let us know.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 10, 2018 12:35 | | Subject: | Re: Part variations | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mattkaupke writes:
| | I’ve noticed as of late that there have been some changes to the catalog resulting
in a number of my items being changed to “undetermined type”. For example 1x1x5
bricks listed as 2453 used to be hollow stud and 2453b was solid. Now 2453 is
undetermined, hollow is 2453a and solid 2453b
Is there an easy fix for this beyond manually changing each item part number?
Also, is there a list of the parts that have been changed in this way?
|
You will be notified if your store has any items that are marked for deletion.
Other than that, you may just search for the word "undetermined".
| | For the admins- is it possible for you guys to automatically do this for the
sellers when you make the changes?
|
Yes, we could move your listings, but that would defeat the whole purpose of
the transition. The hard part isn't changing 2453 to 2453a on your store
inventory page. The correct way involves physically locating all your parts in
this variant group and sorting them.
Btw, there have always been such changes in the catalog. But it is true, we have
been increasing the frequency a bit as of late.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 8, 2018 22:28 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6881-1 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Hi Admin_Russell,
As I had mentioned, I only had one 3942a (in any color) and it came with this
set. Why is this rejected?
|
I think you should take this as a nudge to go in a different direction. Instead
of splitting hairs over these early variants, there is a lot of basic inventory
work to do on the site, even in older inventories. Wrong quantities, wrong colors,
missing things...
If you really like variants perhaps you should start working more with newer
inventories where there is easy access to sealed contents. You may find it more
rewarding to work with first hand information.
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | From my childhood collection
Otherwise, I hope this threat doesn't get removed after few years:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1101093
In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3942a White Cone 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Stud (match ID 4)
* Change 1 Part White 3942c Cone 2 x 2 x 2 - Completely Open Stud {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 4}
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 4, 2018 22:48 | | Subject: | Re: 4495, now 4495a and 4495b | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | | | And by the looks of things, the old type (left) has faded out and the flags you
will get in sets today are all the (right) type. If we do our job well with the
set inventories, parts listed with the partout feature will be pretty accurate
without a lot of manual sorting.
|
All of the inventory changes being accepted seem to be lumping all left-hand
flags pre-2008 and all right-hand flags 2008-present, not around 2004 as you
say in your post. Are we sure the mold was changed at an exact point for these
flags? Are all of these sets being checked or just being changed on a whim? There
must have been an overlap in mold type somewhere.
|
I think you may be on to something. The first I can see of a newer flag in set
images is this from 2009:
The images on Brickset are big enough to see the flag in detail.
So perhaps there was a mistake in the catalog note that exchanged Knights Kingdom
II (2004-2006) for Fantasy Era castle (2007-2009). For now I have removed the
year (2004) since I had added that myself last week. Further corrections may
be forthcoming.
If the images switched in 2009, the parts might have first been released in 2008.
Although at the moment it looks as though 2009 is the first full year.
The catalog transition for this part has been incredibly fast, and I think we're
about ready to close out the two ends.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 2, 2018 20:52 | | Subject: | Re: Question on catalog image uploads | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Catalog, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Isn't 600 the longest side it can be?
In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I was just trying to upload an image to the catalog, and I got an error that
says,
Oops! There was a problem processing your request:
1. Parameter Error.
The image is within the 800X600 pixel size requirement. What else could be the
trouble?
David
|
|
It says 800X600 on the upload page. My image was 600 pixels tall, but less than
800 wide.
David
|
Minifig parameters are 800 tall and 600 wide.
|
The image is for gear flashdr8gb.
I'll try attaching the image to this message. The photo I took doesn't
have hardly any glare on the plastic, so I thought it would be a better image.
Also the current image shows a package that must've been opened, because
the tiny lanyards have been removed.
David
|
There you go. I left the original image as an alternate because it had a different
packaging design.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2018 20:04 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7715-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | | | The two black tiles are not extra according to BrickLink's definition. They
were included in every set and are shown in the set instructions.
|
In every set? what do you mean?
| | I don't know for sure, but I don't think the sticker sheet was officially
counted as a part in 1985 (although sticker sheets are now). Therefore, the
count is currently 445 parts and is accurate. This means that the white 1 x
1 tile is extra.
|
I do not think the sticker sheet was counted. But two hats came assembled with
the head and torso.
Also, if you count this extra tile as extra, then you have to put 5 tiles in
7824 as extra. Then you cannot make the part count=460 (please confirm if it
is 460 or maybe 450)
Is the part count always correct or is it always consistent in the way they counted?
(by which I mean if they didn't count sticker sheet as a part in 1985, it
should not be counted neither for other sets in 1985 or around that time)
For example, I cannot count in any way to make the total 104 for the set 6693-1.
(saw the 104 on a catalog)
|
Part counts in older sets were not as precise as they are now. Not that the old
timers had trouble counting, but there were sometimes cases where parts were
added and designs were changed after the box design had been sent to the printer.
And part counting standards tended to change at a faster rate in those days.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 31, 2018 00:12 | | Subject: | Re: 4495, now 4495a and 4495b | | Viewed: | 117 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, PurpleDave writes:
| | It would have major obvious benefits.
|
I've been studying the ebb and flow of BrickLink entries for years, and one
thing I'm quite sure of is that providing an undetermined entry does not
equate to an environment with no listing errors. In theory, yes, you would be
providing a choice for everyone, but in reality it does not work that way.
This tile entry was recently marked for deletion so it's pretty much in the
same state now, maybe a few less listings. Compare it to the other two determined
entries:
3069 = 580
3069a = 1093
3069b = 64,451
A couple of points - if undetermined entries are such a great thing, why doesn't
3069 have 64,000 listings instead of 3069b?
And further, how many of those 64,000 do you think are currently wrong?
A number of factors go into sellers' decisions to list in certain locations.
For example, sellers have openly stated in the Forum that they feel uneasy listing
under an entry that is not attached to inventories. Other sellers will list where
the price happens to be higher. In other cases, sellers will list where there
are more listings and more wanted lists, so their own listings will gain more
exposure.
And there are other factors. If 95% of the buyers really don't care, what
is the concern over the other 5%? I spoke with a large European seller recently
who said it was less expensive for them to solve a small percent of problem orders
than to worry about correct listings. So as a policy they *never* sort any variants
- they simply download the BrickLink inventory into customized software and go
with whatever is listed in the Regular section, regardless of whether it's
a, b, or undetermined.
My point is that by adding the extra complexity of an undetermined entry, you're
just complicating life for pretty much everyone involved, including new buyers
who have enough of a learning curve to get over without learning what "undetermined"
means.
Undetermined entries *are* good for something, though. We keep them in inventories
until we find an exact variant, so as long as Lego keeps crafting these variants,
we will have undetermined entries in the catalog. Pretty much means as a concept
they are not going away.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 30, 2018 14:00 | | Subject: | Re: 4495, now 4495a and 4495b | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | All of the changes so far are from sealed sources. We have not started to fill
in the gaps yet.
|
So just to be clear, Elias has checked 273 sets, 3 books, and 14 gear from sealed
sources in a matter of hours?
Randy
|
I believe so. He started in last night about midnight California time.
|
Well, then he must have a very large and wonderfully organized collection to
speed through the changes at the rate he has. Color me jealous.
Randy
|
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1077346
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 30, 2018 13:32 | | Subject: | Re: 4495, now 4495a and 4495b | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | There is seriously a differentiation now between RH and LH on such an invaluable
part?
What a chore it would be to try to sort and separate them given they look so
similar at first glance. Won't have the time or inventory drawer space to
bother trying to separate these. Guess they will be going in the "do not sell"
pile.
|
Believe it or not, the marketplace is actually the driver of these decisions.
One of the ways to measure the value of a new set of entries like this is to
see how many sellers quickly list under the new entry and help to fill out the
inventories.
This is one of the easiest mold differences to see, and when the inventories
are filled in completely, some colors likely will only be in one or the other
color, further helping people sort the part.
The main problem is when a buyer goes to fill out an old set (prior to 2004)
and they purchase a newer type flag on BrickLink. People who know older Lego
can spot the wrong type of flag from 10 feet away - this isn't a case of
one or the other type of axle holes, which are seldom exposed on a model to the
extent that a flag is.
And by the looks of things, the old type (left) has faded out and the flags you
will get in sets today are all the (right) type. If we do our job well with the
set inventories, parts listed with the partout feature will be pretty accurate
without a lot of manual sorting.
|
All of the inventory changes being accepted seem to be lumping all left-hand
flags pre-2008 and all right-hand flags 2008-present, not around 2004 as you
say in your post. Are we sure the mold was changed at an exact point for these
flags? Are all of these sets being checked or just being changed on a whim? There
must have been an overlap in mold type somewhere.
Randy
|
All of the changes so far are from sealed sources. We have not started to fill
in the gaps yet.
The year 2004 comes from the catalog note that states that the right-hand flags
were first mentioned in the BrickLink Forum around the time the Knights Kingdom
II theme was introduced. I don't see any reason to doubt that claim. More
than likely, both types of flags were used from 2004 through 2008.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 30, 2018 13:27 | | Subject: | Re: 4495, now 4495a and 4495b | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, uvt203 writes:
| | In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | There is seriously a differentiation now between RH and LH on such an invaluable
part?
What a chore it would be to try to sort and separate them given they look so
similar at first glance. Won't have the time or inventory drawer space to
bother trying to separate these. Guess they will be going in the "do not sell"
pile.
|
I fully agree. However I chose to do the work and spent almost 2 hours going
through all my flags, separate them and relist as A or B. And again the much
too slow update on Brickstock made it impossible to use that handy programme.
And all this for just such an irrelevant mould difference! Please don't come
up with more of these!
/Asger
|
Other users wanted it to be separeted
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1024776
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1090308
|
And which clown decide to delet the origin entry?
|
We're not going to have a catalog stuffed with undetermined entries. When
a decision is made to split an entry, the original one has to go. We plan to
move this process along much faster, btw, than in the past. Six months is plenty
of time for sellers to move their stock, not the years and years that is has
taken in the past.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 30, 2018 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: 4495, now 4495a and 4495b | | Viewed: | 92 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | There is seriously a differentiation now between RH and LH on such an invaluable
part?
What a chore it would be to try to sort and separate them given they look so
similar at first glance. Won't have the time or inventory drawer space to
bother trying to separate these. Guess they will be going in the "do not sell"
pile.
|
Believe it or not, the marketplace is actually the driver of these decisions.
One of the ways to measure the value of a new set of entries like this is to
see how many sellers quickly list under the new entry and help to fill out the
inventories.
This is one of the easiest mold differences to see, and when the inventories
are filled in completely, some colors likely will only be in one or the other
color, further helping people sort the part.
The main problem is when a buyer goes to fill out an old set (prior to 2004)
and they purchase a newer type flag on BrickLink. People who know older Lego
can spot the wrong type of flag from 10 feet away - this isn't a case of
one or the other type of axle holes, which are seldom exposed on a model to the
extent that a flag is.
And by the looks of things, the old type (left) has faded out and the flags you
will get in sets today are all the (right) type. If we do our job well with the
set inventories, parts listed with the partout feature will be pretty accurate
without a lot of manual sorting.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 19, 2018 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 183-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | The crane hook came assembled
The battery wagon came assembled with its roof
There was a previous discussion that the battery wagon should come assmebled
with its roof.
But then, what about the red car? Are we going to define a new item that is built
out of 45 parts (which comes with two wheels on the left side but the right wheels
comes separated in the inventory?)!
My suggestion: for the trains between 1971-79, leave everything as it is.
In particular, it is completely ok and even useful to clearly define and put
the battery wagons separated from their roof in the inventory.
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | * Change 4 Part Red wheel2ac01 Train Wheel Spoked (for motor), with Black Train Rim for 4.5V & 12V Locomotive Wheels (wheel2A / trainrim) {Counterpart to Regular}
|
From the pictures it looks like the crane hook may come fully assembled. If
so, then it should be handled in the inventory the same way as the wheels. Can
you determine how the crane hook comes assembled in the box?
|
|
I had this set growing up and can confirm that the train came fully assembled
except for the last car.
However, this set is a classic example of the exception listed in Help:
Part Assemblies - Part assemblies should be included in set inventories only
where the assemblies in question come pre-assembled in the set box. For example,
2429c01 should be included in set inventories rather than 2429 and 2430. There
are some special exceptions to this rule, such as certain large animal assemblies.
Another exception is when an item is pre-assembled for the purpose of box
display.
I do believe the winches/cranes of this period always came with string already
assembled, and the hook is a possibility as well. The one snag there is that
the left and right hooks seem to have been used interchangeably so we would need
two versions of every winch/crane.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 17, 2018 15:43 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7016-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 3795 Dark Bluish Gray Plate 2 x 6 (Alternate) (match ID 4)
* Change 1 Part Dark Bluish Gray 3032 Plate 4 x 6 {match ID 0 to 4}
Comments from Submitter:
Proof is a correction sheet which I've uploaded as extra instruction image. Will also post it as reponse to this request in forum. At least some of these sets come with this change. If this is considered a redesign, feel free to change match ID to 99.
|
You bring up an interesting point: BrickLink has no standards for what is considered
a redesigned set (as opposed to alternate parts or other changes over time).
This lack of standards leaves the decision, as in many other areas of BrickLink,
to the whim of whomever is looking at the matter.
In the case of this set, I'm not sure if I would consider it redesigned or
not since there is no obvious rationale for the redesign (no improved stability
or playability, for example).
I will try to put something together and add it to the Help section so that we
can all be clear on what is considered a redesign and what is not. Your requests
were approved.
|
I would consider this a redesign since alternate instructions were involved.
There are a number of cases like this where a larger part is replaced by two
smaller ones:
Of course, the exact reasons for a redesign are not divulged by TLG, so we do
our best instead to come up with a plausible rationale for each case. I would
suppose in most of these cases that it was done to make construction easier.
Here, it seems to make disassembly easier. Perhaps there were a few cases of
kids twisting the boat and breaking the 4 x 6 plate.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 17, 2018 11:14 | | Subject: | Re: 50 Shades of Gray | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Colors, dcarmine writes:
| | I found this in my inventory last week. The first is these new brackets. The
brick with clip is normal Dark Bluish Gray, the bracket on the bottom is normal
Light Bluish Gray. The two in the middle, well, ???. I know this happens when
they change colors in the molding machine, I just never saw two with that much
difference before
The second is a slope I found and I can't really explain the speckle. It
is a LEGO part, seems to be mostly Light Bluish Gray. When I looked at it through
a loop, as you can see here, it has small shafts of black. I would expect round
beads, but not shafts.
Does anyone know how the slope got speckled?
Anyone interested in owning them?
Donna
|
Regarding the slope, I've seen that kind of color and speckling in Mega Bloks
military sets.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 20:22 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, todeluca writes:
| | | | That DOES make more sense. I thought you just felt the order of words should
be switched around !
|
The ‘catmin’ obviously did, though - hence my confusion!
|
That is not obvious to me, but might actually be a case in a different point
for you. See, there are two of them. If seems likely that you floated one out
and ran it into a Catmin who felt there was no point in making a change. You
then second guessed yourself and tried it a little different and ran it into
the other Catmin who may actually have been willing to accept your original submission
just as happily as the second. And then you also have to recall that Russell
and Jaclyn (and Cheyne?) are also able to step into that role. I have sometimes
been curious (though I'm not sure there is a need to know) who it was that
confirmed one of my submissions.
|
I do some catalog work myself, especially the new sets/parts and a lot of the
replacement images. Jaclyn and Cheyne have auto approval, which they use from
time to time, but they do not approve other people's submissions.
Generally speaking, there is so much that gets approved and changed every day
that even with only one person it would be difficult to be completely consistent.
But we have the ability to change something again, or bring up an old issue,
so we hope that is sufficient to handle any areas of conflict.
I am planning this coming year to codify a lot more of the catalog policies so
people know in advance how to submit items, but there are so many cases that
don't fit neatly into little square policy boxes, I don't know if we'll
ever get to the place where somebody isn't surprised once in a while by a
rejection.
Something to keep in mind, however - there are few admins but many contributors,
and it takes effort on both sides to have good communication. And our current
messaging system has a lot of limitations as well. We have plans to upgrade that
at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2018 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7730-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Lol!
I have seen all kinds of idiots on Ebay but not of this type. I think nobody
dare to do this because Ebay would protect buyer.
(the last idiot on Ebay: there was a vintage boxed set in US. I contacted the
seller and asked him if he would ship it to Canada. He said he would but the
shipping would cost 80$ USD! The other seller had few boxed sets. In each box,
there were many random parts. I asked him about one boxed train 7722 and if he
can send me more photos of the parts...having seen the photo, I wrote him that
the train wass not complete at all. His response: "Huh? What is missing?? All
figures are there, all trains, crossing piece, etc. what is missing?!?!?"
)
I attached photos of my own windows in white or red. You should be able to see
the difference.
|
|
The windows are the old type with extended lip. Of course these have glass, but
they are not original to a set from 1980.
I have approved this request based on direct knowledge of this part. There are
a lot of issues with these early windows, but in general the glass was removed
from the smaller ones as time went on.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
