Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2019 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: We have a new Catalog Associate! | | Viewed: | 99 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
...you will notice a sea of green, followed by a sea of blue, followed by another
sea of green. This means he continued to contribute to the catalog after having
once been an admin, which is (unfortunately) something rather uncommon. But it
demonstrates a great and correct attitude, the kind of attitude we wish to model
for all of our other contributors out there, especially the ones still cutting
their teeth.
|
Sorry, but I must say that I take offense at this statement. You are passing
judgement on the previous admins and their reasons for leaving the site. You
are implying that the 'correct' attitude would be to maintain one's
dedication to a site even after you may have had a bad experience.
You don't know how they were treated by the management and members of this
site.
Jen
|
This thread was supposed to be a joyful welcome for a new team member. I'm
sorry if it was offensive to anyone and I don't want to argue a point.
I will leave this thread as it is for now. But if people keep commenting on this
issue, I will be forced to lock it.
|
 |
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2019 01:14 | | Subject: | We have a new Catalog Associate! | | Viewed: | 338 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,
I'm very pleased to announce that we have appointed longtime member BricksThatStick
to the Catalog Associate position. Paul served as the site's 4th Inventories
Admin during 2010 to 2011 alongside Emma (SimplyBricks). He effectively replaced
Dan Jezek, the site's founder, who had a special fondness for inventories
work and who of course left very big shoes to fill.
If you take the time to scroll through Paul's 900+ inventories changes:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?chgUserID=44744&v=3
...you will notice a sea of green, followed by a sea of blue, followed by another
sea of green. This means he continued to contribute to the catalog after having
once been an admin, which is (unfortunately) something rather uncommon. But it
demonstrates a great and correct attitude, the kind of attitude we wish to model
for all of our other contributors out there, especially the ones still cutting
their teeth.
Paul has, over the years, been very active as a seller and many of you will know
him also from his activity in the Forum. We look forward to his practical insights
and we are confident he will play a vital role in our growing catalog team.
Please welcome him back! 
Russell
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 23, 2019 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Email vs Message systems | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| We encourage people to use the onsite messaging system when discussing order-related
things, because it is something we can see on our end if there is a dispute.
I know it's a pain to not be able to send attachments, but for us it's
better than having everything done offsite.
In Suggestions, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | When a buyer contacts me, using the contact form on BL, I get an email from BL
with the message. However, replying to that email just results in a bounced email.
I am forced to go into BL message center and copy/paste my text. Even worse when
I need to reply with an attachment (like a photo of a brick): not an option.
This all ends up in two // streams of communication: some messages are sent using
BL, others over direct email.
I'm forced to use a communication medium (BL) that is not adequate. Until
it's adequate, I would suggest to remove the "Messaging" feature all together.
Until BL can offer a mature messaging feature that makes direct email obsolete,
I would suggest to remove the Message feature (and point the users to direct
email contact). Now it's just a very confusing and annoying mix of communication
channels.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2019 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Cardboard sleeves in inventories | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, Proprietor writes:
| | In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
snip
| | Because our partout system is not yet capable of handling subparts, we're
probably not going to be able to add these sleeves to the regular section of
inventories. Maybe if we change the image and description we can do it, but right
now sellers will end up listing things in their store that buyers cannot identify.
Please have patience as we make some adjustments.
|
And yet, inventories are being changed, and the sleeve is being added as a regular
item and its component parts deleted:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=S&itemNo=10220-1&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
|
Yes, there were a number of them done this way yesterday, but we'll probably
need to make an adjustment.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2019 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Cardboard sleeves in inventories | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, hpoort writes:
| | In Inventories, Turez writes:
| | In Inventories, mwright5 writes:
| | Wow! Just seeing that cardboard cape boxes have been added to the catalog.
I usually would prefer to refrain from making a derogatory comment on something
so trivial, but I have to say, that is a new kind of stupid. Give me a break.
|
I would not say that it is stupid to have catalog entries for the cardboard sleeves.
It may be helpful to have a reference for them. But adding the whole cardboard
sleeves to set inventories instead of the included parts is something completely
different.
|
Understanding the wish for (1) having the sleeves in the catalog and thus the
need to include the in inventories somehow, and (2) leaving the functionality
of the inventories as is, brings me to a simple alternate solution:
Add the sleeves as ALTERNATE to the inventories only.
|
This would fall under what is currently described as the counterpart section.
| |
Similar to
- a part with the sticker applied is alternate (as opposed to the stickersheet
and the plain part)
- a combination of parts that is hard to separate is alternate (as opposed
to the parts that make up the combination)
- the parts that are removed from a sprue (as opposed to the entire sprue)
and thus finally:
- a part still packed within the original sleeve (as opposed to the part without
packaging)
How about this alternative?
Hans-Peter
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2019 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Cardboard sleeves in inventories | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, Turez writes:
Folks, if anything is going to improve in the catalog, we need to give some freedom
and grace to our admins so they can try things out. I can understand if people
get frustrated when they find something has changed and it no longer works for
them, but please understand that we have the long-term interests of the site
in mind, and also that we can adjust and/or reverse any decision that is made.
Regarding these sleeves, we have needed to add them to the catalog for quite
a while now, because of the need to search by the number printed on the sleeve.
Strictly speaking, this is not a PCC, but it's still a number people can
use for reference. Specifically, we want to give the ability to sellers to sell
the parts in the sleeves without having to open the sleeves. The only way they
can do this is to have a reference database showing the contents of every sleeve.
Because our partout system is not yet capable of handling subparts, we're
probably not going to be able to add these sleeves to the regular section of
inventories. Maybe if we change the image and description we can do it, but right
now sellers will end up listing things in their store that buyers cannot identify.
Please have patience as we make some adjustments.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2019 12:25 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | The foolish policy to which I refer is the one that uses the "official parts
count" as the primary guide for what goes in the regular section when there is
no part list.
|
Regular Items - Parts required to build the main model and any secondary models
plus any other parts on the official parts list. In the absence of an official
parts list, the official parts count, the instructions, and/or images on the
packaging are used to determine as closely as possible the contents of this section.
Where does it say anything about the official parts count being the primary guide?
It is listed first because it is the easiest and most useful thing to check.
There are cases where the instructions have the final say, e.g. in a situation
where the instructions call for a greater number of parts than the official parts
count.
| | That policy does not serve sellers who want to part out sets, because
there is no consistent way Lego has counted parts in the past, and part counts
are not included on all sets now.
|
LEGO part counts are exceptionally reliable. There are a few cases where things
don't line up, but for 99.9% of the cases they are spot on. We know that
some sets don't have them, but that is nothing new. Sets produced for the
European market in the 1970's never had them.
| | That policy is not spelled out anywhere in the help pages. It is listed among
the possible sources in the absence of a part list, but it is not explained that
it is considered more important than the instructions.
|
It is spelled out as much as it needs to be. Any further details about how part
lists were counted slightly differently over the years or limitations of their
usefulness are matters of discussion among collectors. Please read these as examples:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1027168
https://www.bricklink.com/aboutMe.asp?u=viejos&pageID=16500
We're not going to put that level of detail in the Help Pages. Our Inv Admins
have access to this kind of information to help them make informed decisions,
but it's too much for the general BrickLink public.
| | This case illustrates the foolishness of this policy. The criterion for including
these leftover parts in the regular section - and thereby including them in any
part-out and in requiring them to be present to sell the set as "complete" -
is a number printed on the package. If this set had been released just in Europe
with no part count on the box, those parts would be extras, could be excluded
from a part-out, and would not be required in a "complete" set.
|
Maybe, but probably not. We have other ways to determine what parts should be
considered regular, and one of them is related sets.
| | If you want to base the inventories on the consistent contents of the box, that
makes sense from a part-out viewpoint. But this policy does not guarantee that
will happen. It is determining what goes "inside" the box based on what's
printed on the outside of the box, and not what is actually included.
|
The parts count is just one tool out of many that we use. It is not used to remove
actual contents from a set, or to add things that were never there. BrickLink's
standard is a sealed set, and that's where we start from when building an
inventory.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jul 4, 2019 03:00 | | Subject: | Re: 10205 : Parts to be removed from Inventory | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, 62Bricks writes:
| | | | If there is nothing that can be done to stop this misguided inventory policy,
it would at least be useful to have it explained in the help pages. I hear a
lot of lip service being paid to consistency, but these policies are still opaque
and arcane to anyone trying to understand them from what is written, and as such
their application appears very inconsistent.
|
As this set demonstrates, the designation of "extra" items is essentially meaningless,
since the policy now is to document the contents of the box and not the parts
needed to build the models. The simplest thing to do to avoid confusion and the
appearance of inconsistency is to eliminate the extra parts designation entirely.
Of course that might mean apparent conflicts with what you are calling "official"
part counts, but you can't have it both ways. It appears that items are just
being moved from extra to regular or vice versa simply to make the BL inventory
count match the number that sometimes appears on some boxes in some parts of
the world.
|
| | That is a foolish policy because history has shown us that Lego has changed how
they count parts in the past. If they do it again in the future, we will be faced
with a dilemma.
The previous method of designating extra parts was unique to BL and would still
work no matter what Lego did. That method has been abandoned, and it was a shortsighted
mistake.
|
These policies are grounded in a thorough and correct understanding of LEGO history
in addition to the practical considerations of running a site that sells parts.
When you examine the change log of this inventory, you will see that as far as
extra parts goes, it has remained exactly the same as it was on the day it was
approved in July 2005. That was 14 years ago. Meaning that the extras policy
the admins are defending today is the same one used to create this inventory
all those years ago.
There was no “previous method”. There were some people who (after Dan passed
away) tried to change the way things were done, and for a short while it may
have seemed like there was some sort of new policy. But there was simply no easy
way to change everything the site had done up until that point to accommodate
a new way of defining extra pieces, so this idea of a new extras policy was confined
to a small subset of parts and an even smaller subset of sets that happened to
get inventoried at that time.
BrickLink has always preferred to document the contents of the box vs the parts
necessary to build the set. This is because BrickLink was from the a beginning
a site primarily designed to sell parts, and the inventory system was designed
primarily to part out sets. Sellers parting out sets don’t necessarily care whether
or not parts are used in the instructions. They want a list of parts that they
can upload efficiently to their store inventory and sell.
Initially there was no Extras section, and everything was placed in the regular
section. There is reams of evidence in the change logs to prove this. The Extras
section was designed to handle parts with variable presence so that sellers could
either exclude them categorically or treat them with special care during the
partout process. Parts that invariably came in a set were deemed regular parts.
Those that may or may not have been included were called extras.
Fast forward to several years ago when I was grappling with the task of more
firmly defining the rules for inventories (mainly so that conversations like
this wouldn’t have to take place). The site needed a standard to align itself
with, and it needed to be one that both sellers and collectors could live with.
A very small adjustment consisting of some rubber band holders and a few stacking
pins was all that was necessary to align the traditional partout-focused policy
with the historical practices of the LEGO Group.
So that’s where we are today, and it doesn’t seem shortsighted at all, at least
to me. I actually tried to envision what an instructions-based policy would look
like and where it would lead us. But we’ve got so many sets where there are no
instructions or the instructions only use a certain percentage of the pieces.
And when something is listed in a published parts list, it’s really not in the
site’s best interests to encourage sellers to leave those parts out of what is
considered a “complete” set. It’s just asking for problems.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2019 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Part 2739b in sets from 2012-2014 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| Hi Jonas,
I myself have wondered about this part in our BrickLink inventories for several
years. Confusion seems to have come from images that did not show the differences
clearly enough.
In Inventories, Turez writes:
| | Hello everybody,
before I (maybe) do some proper requests, I'd like to clarify the following
issue regarding part 2739a/2739b in black.
Set 8110 came with 2739b in August 2011. That is correct: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5134871
In November 2011, 2739a was added as alternate. That is correct, too: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5256458
According to the catalog, five sets from 2012-2014 still had 2739b. I think that's
wrong because...
- I tried to find images or videos showing 2739b, but didn't find a single
one.
- All those sets were inventoried by the same person and always with Source:
Parts List.
- The following sets from 2012 and 2013 have 2739a as regular and these sets
were inventoried with Source: Sealed Set Contents.
Images of new sets with 2739a:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5549146
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5583833
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5706003
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5886402
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=6026821
Summary: I think 2739b never appeared in any set from 2012 and later, so I suggest
to delete it from the inventories of 9398, 9396, 9393, 42005 and 42021.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 26, 2019 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: 4070a | | Viewed: | 109 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | In Catalog, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| | In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | Yes, BL has decided not to differentiate between these.
In Catalog, seymour3113 writes:
| | I have several of these bricks (4070a). They are being deleted from catalog.
Should I just list them as 4070?
|
|
Thankfully, since there are so many headlight bricks with varying levels of partial
holes. It was definitely a manufacturing defect.
|
You think the horizontal slot is a defect?
I believe, until Lego says otherwise, the slot is meant to be like this.
Out of all my 4070 at least 80% have a slot, no matter what year or color, no
matter what set it came from.
Too much for a defect.
It is a slot that is always the same form, sharply formed, very straight and
small.
I think it could be made for pressure relieve.
|
Yes, if you look from the inside, the hole is always moulded there. Sometimes
there is a thin skin over it. I think all my newer parts have the slot, with
older ones being hit and miss.
I believe the note on the part 'This part is occasionally found with a small
horizontal slot in the front near the base. This is believed to be an unintentional
feature.' is incorrect. Should be the other way round 'occasionally
found WITHOUT a small...'
|
Exactly my idea!
Maybe we should ask for a catalog change.
|
I've changed the catalog note for both entries. See if that sounds better
to you.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 20, 2019 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Protest of 3830c01 marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 121 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, mnementh writes:
| | In Catalog, JusTiCe8 writes:
| | Especially when considering the reason why it has been marked:
"This item was marked for deletion because it sets a precedent for adding
dozens of unnecessary combinations of hinges as assemblies to the catalog."
|
And meanwhile, we now have 14 recently created entries for mixed color 3937/
3738 Hinges.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3937c15#T=C
That decision goes directly AGAINST the catalog policy, so I deem those entries
to be stupid and unnecessary.
I believe keeping the 3830c01 single color combos is the right thing to do.
I dislike when admins forget that this is a COMMERCE website first and foremost
and does not exist to maintain a "pure" catalog.
3830c01 has been bought and sold THOUSANDS of times over the past 18 years and
it is clearly the preferred form for both buying and selling.
|
The decision to get rid of the brick hinge and add plate hinge had NOTHING to
do with any kind of purist notion. Rather, it was a decision based solely on
commercial concerns.
When a large portion of sellers list things as an assembly instead of the individual
parts, the listings are effectively split, meaning that for the part in question,
BrickLink's listing strength is diminished. What starts out as a well-meaning
idea based on someone's personal listing preferences then works its way through
the system as an ineffeciency, leading to more complicated wanted list assembly
and maintenance and a lot of missed hits from things like Easy Buy and traffic
that comes to us via Brickset and the Lego replacements parts website.
For that reason, we do not want assemblies in the catalog that have no good rationale
for their existence. The plate assemblies are very useful for sellers of used
parts because they don't have to pull the assemblies apart to list them.
The plate hinges break frequently when they are older.
The brick hinge, to my knowledge, does not break when disassembled. Neither is
it part of a larger class of items that can as a whole be treated as an assembly
- such as wheels and tires.
And lest people forget, this brick hinge assembly was completely removed from
inventories many years ago by Dan himself in what I believe to be was the first
step in decommissioning the entry altogether.
Regarding the idea that we could use the assembly *instead* of the individual
parts as the entry of choice on the site - this is kind of thinking that produced
this entry:
* | | 8c01 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Wheel Holder Bottom with Red Wheel with Black Tire 14mm D. x 4mm Smooth Small Single (8 / 3464c01)
Parts: Aircraft |
It's just easier and simpler for everyone to use the assembly, and little
by little the assemblies are taking precedence over the individual parts in both
listings and sales.
But the reason we can't do that with the hinge brick is because Lego does
not issue the part as an assembly. They never have and likely never will. This
places a constraint on us, because we want to line up our catalog as much as
possible with the way bricks are treated by them. That way there is a smooth
pipeline through the supply chain. This is the same reason we started using multipacks:
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 5, 2019 23:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 103-1 | | Viewed: | 36 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, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3058b Light Gray Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide
* Add 1 Part 3058b Light Gray Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide (match ID 6)
* Add 1 Part 3058b Black Plate, Modified 6 x 16 with Motor Cutout Wide (match ID 6)
Comments from Submitter:
See
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1139682
|
You should be able to use the change function now. It was fixed a few days ago.
|
I thought it would not be deployed to the live site until next week. Was it already
pushed to the live site, then?
|
Yes, an exception was made for this bug.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 15, 2019 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Is the inv change request page broken? | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories, Brixalotl writes:
| | I am trying to enter an alternate part change request and keep getting the error
of "item no required if item type is entered", which I know is incorrect since
the system already has the info when you enter the inv item number. I notice
the layout has been updated since the last time I used it, with the action column
being a drop down now and the item type column has been removed (part, gear,
etc).
I am curious if others are getting the same error, and what I can do to overcome
it.
Thanks,
Jim
|
Yes, there is an issue with the form and we have a bug fix in the works. You
will need to just add and delete for now whenever it involves a type change (Alternate,
Counterpart, etc.)
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 18:15 | | Subject: | We have a new Inventories Administrator! | | Viewed: | 234 times | | Topic: | Inventories | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| Hello everyone,
I'm very pleased to announce that we have appointed a new Inventories Administrator,
to fill in the place that Marek left when he was promoted to Catalog Associate.
For this position we have selected member Paulvdb (Paul), whom many of you may
know as a catalog contributor, inventories contributor, and Forum participant.
He is also an established seller (since 2011, I believe) so many of you may know
him also through that channel.
Paul has distinguished himself especially by his work with older inventories,
sharing many sealed set contents data with the site for some of our precious
old vintage sets. We have found his contributions to be ultra reliable and think
he is going to do very well in this new role.
Congratulations are in order!
Russell
|
|
|
|
|
| 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.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
