|
 |
| | | Author: | eileenkeeney  | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 17:37 | | Subject: | Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 422 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| I am not even certain I think this is a good idea, but I had this thought.
Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
The test would require that one be able to use the catalog, to verify the part
and color that they are offering for sale.
Such things as the length in dots (or diameter in case of something like a rubber
band) could be done with pictures (like showing something that is 5 lego dots
long, next to a Lego plate, aligned so one can see how many dots long it is,
and having them select the correct length from multiple choices).
Or maybe include some pictures of pieces in some colors that are close, but different
enough to easily identify.
Or maybe a better idea is to present sellers with a verification popup, when
listing certain part/color combinations.
- Anytime a color is listed, that is no longer in production, a popup asking
the seller to verify the color, and telling them the color has not been produced
since (year), would avoid some errors.
- Anytime it is a part/color combination, that is not one that is known to have
been in any set, a verification popup would be useful.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | George_Lucy | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 17:49 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 111 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I suggest then that we make buyers also pass a test on how to pay and if they
can read a splash page, or understand what shipping charges are or the other
hundred things I don't have time to write.
I just had a buyer place an order. I send an invoice, he sends me a bank money
transfer request which I don't accept. I write him a nice note explaining
that we only take Paypal and MO. He writes back and I quote "It Sucks To Be You".
I think he would fail my test.
In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | I am not even certain I think this is a good idea, but I had this thought.
Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
The test would require that one be able to use the catalog, to verify the part
and color that they are offering for sale.
Such things as the length in dots (or diameter in case of something like a rubber
band) could be done with pictures (like showing something that is 5 lego dots
long, next to a Lego plate, aligned so one can see how many dots long it is,
and having them select the correct length from multiple choices).
Or maybe include some pictures of pieces in some colors that are close, but different
enough to easily identify.
Or maybe a better idea is to present sellers with a verification popup, when
listing certain part/color combinations.
- Anytime a color is listed, that is no longer in production, a popup asking
the seller to verify the color, and telling them the color has not been produced
since (year), would avoid some errors.
- Anytime it is a part/color combination, that is not one that is known to have
been in any set, a verification popup would be useful.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 18:04 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 104 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | I am not even certain I think this is a good idea, but I had this thought.
Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
The test would require that one be able to use the catalog, to verify the part
and color that they are offering for sale.
Such things as the length in dots (or diameter in case of something like a rubber
band) could be done with pictures (like showing something that is 5 lego dots
long, next to a Lego plate, aligned so one can see how many dots long it is,
and having them select the correct length from multiple choices).
Or maybe include some pictures of pieces in some colors that are close, but different
enough to easily identify.
Or maybe a better idea is to present sellers with a verification popup, when
listing certain part/color combinations.
- Anytime a color is listed, that is no longer in production, a popup asking
the seller to verify the color, and telling them the color has not been produced
since (year), would avoid some errors.
- Anytime it is a part/color combination, that is not one that is known to have
been in any set, a verification popup would be useful.
|
I've seen too many Light Blue 2x4 bricks to vote no 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 18:23 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, pikachu3 writes:
| | Require sellers to pass a test before selling
|
I suggest the pictured math problem should be used for the test for wannabe sellers.
If they get the wrong answer they cannot sell here.
For the buyer the following math test should be given:
sale price + shipping + vat tax - how much the seller lies for you = x.
Admins should have a test too.
number of potential Chinese buyers - minus number of buyers here on Bricklink
= x.
If x is number of buyers here, Chinese language will be used and a tab for
English will be listed on the bottom of the page and admins will have to learn
Chinese.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | acd114 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 10:41 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, pikachu3 writes:
| | Require sellers to pass a test before selling
|
I suggest the pictured math problem should be used for the test for wannabe sellers.
If they get the wrong answer they cannot sell here.
For the buyer the following math test should be given:
sale price + shipping + vat tax - how much the seller lies for you = x.
Admins should have a test too.
number of potential Chinese buyers - minus number of buyers here on Bricklink
= x.
If x is number of buyers here, Chinese language will be used and a tab for
English will be listed on the bottom of the page and admins will have to learn
Chinese.
John P
|
But what if you simply recognise that equation as being the Magnetic Resonance
master equation, rather than having to actually solve it?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, acd114 writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, pikachu3 writes:
| | Require sellers to pass a test before selling
|
I suggest the pictured math problem should be used for the test for wannabe sellers.
If they get the wrong answer they cannot sell here.
For the buyer the following math test should be given:
sale price + shipping + vat tax - how much the seller lies for you = x.
Admins should have a test too.
number of potential Chinese buyers - minus number of buyers here on Bricklink
= x.
If x is number of buyers here, Chinese language will be used and a tab for
English will be listed on the bottom of the page and admins will have to learn
Chinese.
John P
|
But what if you simply recognise that equation as being the Magnetic Resonance
master equation, rather than having to actually solve it?
|
That should work. I had no idea what it was, just looked complicated.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb436221 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | I am not even certain I think this is a good idea, but I had this thought.
Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
The test would require that one be able to use the catalog, to verify the part
and color that they are offering for sale.
Such things as the length in dots (or diameter in case of something like a rubber
band) could be done with pictures (like showing something that is 5 lego dots
long, next to a Lego plate, aligned so one can see how many dots long it is,
and having them select the correct length from multiple choices).
Or maybe include some pictures of pieces in some colors that are close, but different
enough to easily identify.
Or maybe a better idea is to present sellers with a verification popup, when
listing certain part/color combinations.
- Anytime a color is listed, that is no longer in production, a popup asking
the seller to verify the color, and telling them the color has not been produced
since (year), would avoid some errors.
- Anytime it is a part/color combination, that is not one that is known to have
been in any set, a verification popup would be useful.
|
Voted Yes. This won't hurt good sellers, and it'll reduce the number
of bad sellers.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BLUSER_420435 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 18:20 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb436221 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 18:31 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, izzi_rust writes:
| | | | Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
|
I think if you do that, there should also be a test to see if you can Keep selling
on Bricklink... I think there are sellers who have a few sales under their belt,
and then take their hands off the wheel... quality of service and personalities
in general.
If they are taking for granted that an order is a partnership, not a petition
to their personal awesomeness, then That'a a fail.
I placed 18 orders in December. Almost 80% of that was jacked up in some way.
Some of the sellers took the "Sucks to be You" attitude.
Every problem I had was from big number sellers. I just placed the first order
with a new shop, and it was one of the best executed orders I've received.
You make a point that new sellers should know what their selling, and how to
represent that properly, but the enthusiasm and gratitude that many new sellers
have goes a long way, too... it's a shame when it goes.
izzi
|
Keep in mind that the bigger the seller is, then the more mistakes they make.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Castleguy121 writes:
| |
Keep in mind that the bigger the seller is, then the more mistakes they make.
|
This guy must make a lot of mistakes.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_420435 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 18:49 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Castleguy121 writes:
| | Keep in mind that the bigger the seller is, then the more mistakes they make.
|
maybe this is because they get so many large orders due to the high volumes of
'lots' that their stores have.
Sometimes I have a mistake or two within my inventory and I am able to rectify
this by having some of my 'personal' stock available, but if their stores
are run so tightly without any lee-way what so ever, mistakes are likely to happen.
However, it is possible that due to some set's inventories being incorrect
upon being parted-out, some parts are not the correct type or even not available,
that is where some mistakes are made.
The vast majority of us are 'hobby' sellers, who only do this to off-load
the parts that are not needed, and while it is nice to get large orders now and
again, these multi-lot ones are a real bug-bear as they DO take time to fulfil
and these are usually where mistakes can occur.
Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 19:17 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Suggestions, Castleguy121 writes:
| | Keep in mind that the bigger the seller is, then the more mistakes they make.
|
maybe this is because they get so many large orders due to the high volumes of
'lots' that their stores have.
Sometimes I have a mistake or two within my inventory and I am able to rectify
this by having some of my 'personal' stock available, but if their stores
are run so tightly without any lee-way what so ever, mistakes are likely to happen.
However, it is possible that due to some set's inventories being incorrect
upon being parted-out, some parts are not the correct type or even not available,
that is where some mistakes are made.
The vast majority of us are 'hobby' sellers, who only do this to off-load
the parts that are not needed, and while it is nice to get large orders now and
again, these multi-lot ones are a real bug-bear as they DO take time to fulfil
and these are usually where mistakes can occur.
Regards,
Paul
|
There are mistakes due to attention to detail, and there are mistakes due to
a lack of knowledge.
There are mistakes where a little bit more knowledge the seller would not have
made.
I like the idea of the verification popup better than the requirement of a test.
I think that most of the mistakes, that I have seen in the orders I have received,
would have been prevented if the seller had been told that the piece they listed
was very rare, and/or not recently (or ever) sold by Lego, and that they should
verify that they really had the piece they were listing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 21:59 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| |
There are mistakes due to attention to detail, and there are mistakes due to
a lack of knowledge.
There are mistakes where a little bit more knowledge the seller would not have
made.
I like the idea of the verification popup better than the requirement of a test.
I think that most of the mistakes, that I have seen in the orders I have received,
would have been prevented if the seller had been told that the piece they listed
was very rare, and/or not recently (or ever) sold by Lego, and that they should
verify that they really had the piece they were listing.
|
This idea assumes that the Bricklink catalog is accurate.
I once asked that a color be added to the "known color" list for a classic part
and was greeted with snide remarks doubting the depth of my LEGO knowledge and
general skepticism that the part even existed. Then my request was discarded
by the admins.
This is because even though a part was actually produced in a certain color,
and even though you have a hundred of them you'd like to list for sale, and
even though other sellers have verified the part exists in that color, etc.,
unless it has been blessed with inclusion in an inventory it will not be added
as a known color.
So I don't think we should trust Bricklink's catalog to be offering any
kind of definitive check on a part's actual existence. Bricklink still hasn't
resolved the question of whether it wants to be completely accurate or not. Especially
when it comes to classic items, I frequently hear the excuse that Bricklink was
never meant to be a definitive reference and so sellers and collectors of classic
items should just stop asking that those entries be accurate.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 22:04 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| |
There are mistakes due to attention to detail, and there are mistakes due to
a lack of knowledge.
There are mistakes where a little bit more knowledge the seller would not have
made.
I like the idea of the verification popup better than the requirement of a test.
I think that most of the mistakes, that I have seen in the orders I have received,
would have been prevented if the seller had been told that the piece they listed
was very rare, and/or not recently (or ever) sold by Lego, and that they should
verify that they really had the piece they were listing.
|
This idea assumes that the Bricklink catalog is accurate.
I once asked that a color be added to the "known color" list for a classic part
and was greeted with snide remarks doubting the depth of my LEGO knowledge and
general skepticism that the part even existed. Then my request was discarded
by the admins.
This is because even though a part was actually produced in a certain color,
and even though you have a hundred of them you'd like to list for sale, and
even though other sellers have verified the part exists in that color, etc.,
unless it has been blessed with inclusion in an inventory it will not be added
as a known color.
So I don't think we should trust Bricklink's catalog to be offering any
kind of definitive check on a part's actual existence. Bricklink still hasn't
resolved the question of whether it wants to be completely accurate or not. Especially
when it comes to classic items, I frequently hear the excuse that Bricklink was
never meant to be a definitive reference and so sellers and collectors of classic
items should just stop asking that those entries be accurate.
|
I don't think this was offered as a definite no that a part/color combination
is wrong. Rather, it would be useful if a warning would come up, saying this
combo is not recognized as known-to-exist in sets, and asking verification if
this is what you want to do. Sellers that have rare unknown part/color combos
will know that they are correct, and new sellers will get a poke to verify if
this unusual combo might not be a mistake.
I don't see an issue there, looks like a helpful suggestion to me.
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 22:34 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| |
There are mistakes due to attention to detail, and there are mistakes due to
a lack of knowledge.
There are mistakes where a little bit more knowledge the seller would not have
made.
I like the idea of the verification popup better than the requirement of a test.
I think that most of the mistakes, that I have seen in the orders I have received,
would have been prevented if the seller had been told that the piece they listed
was very rare, and/or not recently (or ever) sold by Lego, and that they should
verify that they really had the piece they were listing.
|
This idea assumes that the Bricklink catalog is accurate.
I once asked that a color be added to the "known color" list for a classic part
and was greeted with snide remarks doubting the depth of my LEGO knowledge and
general skepticism that the part even existed. Then my request was discarded
by the admins.
This is because even though a part was actually produced in a certain color,
and even though you have a hundred of them you'd like to list for sale, and
even though other sellers have verified the part exists in that color, etc.,
unless it has been blessed with inclusion in an inventory it will not be added
as a known color.
So I don't think we should trust Bricklink's catalog to be offering any
kind of definitive check on a part's actual existence. Bricklink still hasn't
resolved the question of whether it wants to be completely accurate or not. Especially
when it comes to classic items, I frequently hear the excuse that Bricklink was
never meant to be a definitive reference and so sellers and collectors of classic
items should just stop asking that those entries be accurate.
|
I don't think this was offered as a definite no that a part/color combination
is wrong. Rather, it would be useful if a warning would come up, saying this
combo is not recognized as known-to-exist in sets, and asking verification if
this is what you want to do. Sellers that have rare unknown part/color combos
will know that they are correct, and new sellers will get a poke to verify if
this unusual combo might not be a mistake.
I don't see an issue there, looks like a helpful suggestion to me.
Niek.
|
Take an example like the classic part I tried to add as a known color. It's
a fairly common part, but very uncommon in a certain color. It has not been inventoried
in that color and so the color does not appear on the "known color" list.
So imagine two sellers - one is the seller who has been collecting for years
and knows his stuff. He has also been around Bricklink long enough to know the
catalog is full of errors. When he goes to list the part, this "warning" system
pops up and says "Are you sure? This is not a known color for this part." He
ignores it and lists it anyway.
The second seller doesn't specialize in this part. He finds a bunch of them
in a random lot. He goes to list them and gets the warning "Are you sure?" -
well, he's not sure. Maybe he has fakes? He doesn't know. So he doesn't
list them.
Now let's imagine the buyer. He's interested in classic parts. He sees
a seller with an old part in an unusual color. He's asking more than usual
for the piece because of its supposed rarity in that color. The only problem
is Bricklink says that part was never made in that color. Is this seller trying
to rip people off? Does he know what he's talking about? The buyer can investigate,
talk to the seller, ask for photos, etc. but this is a lot of extra work for
both him and the seller. On the other hand, if Bricklink lists that part as a
known color (which is accurate) and the buyer sees that other sellers are also
selling it in that color, and sees that a market value has been established,
he can be confident he's buying something that actually exists rather than
risking his money on something Bricklink says is not "known."
Let's encourage Bricklink to be more accurate in their catalog entries -
THEN we can expect sellers to be more accurate in their "for sale" listings.
I don't think you can have one until you have the other.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 22:56 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
--
Marc.
In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| |
There are mistakes due to attention to detail, and there are mistakes due to
a lack of knowledge.
There are mistakes where a little bit more knowledge the seller would not have
made.
I like the idea of the verification popup better than the requirement of a test.
I think that most of the mistakes, that I have seen in the orders I have received,
would have been prevented if the seller had been told that the piece they listed
was very rare, and/or not recently (or ever) sold by Lego, and that they should
verify that they really had the piece they were listing.
|
This idea assumes that the Bricklink catalog is accurate.
I once asked that a color be added to the "known color" list for a classic part
and was greeted with snide remarks doubting the depth of my LEGO knowledge and
general skepticism that the part even existed. Then my request was discarded
by the admins.
This is because even though a part was actually produced in a certain color,
and even though you have a hundred of them you'd like to list for sale, and
even though other sellers have verified the part exists in that color, etc.,
unless it has been blessed with inclusion in an inventory it will not be added
as a known color.
So I don't think we should trust Bricklink's catalog to be offering any
kind of definitive check on a part's actual existence. Bricklink still hasn't
resolved the question of whether it wants to be completely accurate or not. Especially
when it comes to classic items, I frequently hear the excuse that Bricklink was
never meant to be a definitive reference and so sellers and collectors of classic
items should just stop asking that those entries be accurate.
|
I don't think this was offered as a definite no that a part/color combination
is wrong. Rather, it would be useful if a warning would come up, saying this
combo is not recognized as known-to-exist in sets, and asking verification if
this is what you want to do. Sellers that have rare unknown part/color combos
will know that they are correct, and new sellers will get a poke to verify if
this unusual combo might not be a mistake.
I don't see an issue there, looks like a helpful suggestion to me.
Niek.
|
Take an example like the classic part I tried to add as a known color. It's
a fairly common part, but very uncommon in a certain color. It has not been inventoried
in that color and so the color does not appear on the "known color" list.
So imagine two sellers - one is the seller who has been collecting for years
and knows his stuff. He has also been around Bricklink long enough to know the
catalog is full of errors. When he goes to list the part, this "warning" system
pops up and says "Are you sure? This is not a known color for this part." He
ignores it and lists it anyway.
The second seller doesn't specialize in this part. He finds a bunch of them
in a random lot. He goes to list them and gets the warning "Are you sure?" -
well, he's not sure. Maybe he has fakes? He doesn't know. So he doesn't
list them.
Now let's imagine the buyer. He's interested in classic parts. He sees
a seller with an old part in an unusual color. He's asking more than usual
for the piece because of its supposed rarity in that color. The only problem
is Bricklink says that part was never made in that color. Is this seller trying
to rip people off? Does he know what he's talking about? The buyer can investigate,
talk to the seller, ask for photos, etc. but this is a lot of extra work for
both him and the seller. On the other hand, if Bricklink lists that part as a
known color (which is accurate) and the buyer sees that other sellers are also
selling it in that color, and sees that a market value has been established,
he can be confident he's buying something that actually exists rather than
risking his money on something Bricklink says is not "known."
Let's encourage Bricklink to be more accurate in their catalog entries -
THEN we can expect sellers to be more accurate in their "for sale" listings.
I don't think you can have one until you have the other.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 01:31 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I like that!
Here's a good example of a part NOT in any sets, but have certainly been
made. It's only avaliable from one seller and NO, that seller did not make
a mistake 
In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 01:37 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Is that Dark Grey? Looks like a few sellers have it, at prices that suit its
rarity of course.
Thankfully no one's proposing a rule that you can't list any parts not
in sets!
I agree with FigBits, though. New members often make the mistake of assuming
that "known" means, well, "known", when we actually know of sooo many parts outside
of sets.
In Suggestions, 1974 writes:
| | I like that!
Here's a good example of a part NOT in any sets, but have certainly been
made. It's only avaliable from one seller and NO, that seller did not make
a mistake
In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 01:43 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Yes, dark grey. Only bunte-steine.de has any for sale
In Suggestions, pikachu3 writes:
| | Is that Dark Grey? Looks like a few sellers have it, at prices that suit its
rarity of course.
Thankfully no one's proposing a rule that you can't list any parts not
in sets!
I agree with FigBits, though. New members often make the mistake of assuming
that "known" means, well, "known", when we actually know of sooo many parts outside
of sets.
In Suggestions, 1974 writes:
| | I like that!
Here's a good example of a part NOT in any sets, but have certainly been
made. It's only avaliable from one seller and NO, that seller did not make
a mistake
In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 01:45 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Oops, yes, I missed that they were all the same seller 
In Suggestions, 1974 writes:
| | Yes, dark grey. Only bunte-steine.de has any for sale
In Suggestions, pikachu3 writes:
| | Is that Dark Grey? Looks like a few sellers have it, at prices that suit its
rarity of course.
Thankfully no one's proposing a rule that you can't list any parts not
in sets!
I agree with FigBits, though. New members often make the mistake of assuming
that "known" means, well, "known", when we actually know of sooo many parts outside
of sets.
In Suggestions, 1974 writes:
| | I like that!
Here's a good example of a part NOT in any sets, but have certainly been
made. It's only avaliable from one seller and NO, that seller did not make
a mistake
In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 07:05 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, pikachu3 writes:
| | Is that Dark Grey? Looks like a few sellers have it, at prices that suit its
rarity of course.
Thankfully no one's proposing a rule that you can't list any parts not
in sets!
I agree with FigBits, though. New members often make the mistake of assuming
that "known" means, well, "known", when we actually know of sooo many parts outside
of sets.
In Suggestions, 1974 writes:
| | I like that!
Here's a good example of a part NOT in any sets, but have certainly been
made. It's only avaliable from one seller and NO, that seller did not make
a mistake
In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
--
Marc.
|
|
|
Changing the wording to "in sets" only reinforces the limitation that Bricklink
has imposed where pieces are only listed in colors that have been inventoried
in sets. It would be better to leave it as "known" but then actually include
all the known colors, even those not yet in set inventories.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 08:08 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | | | | | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
--
Marc.
|
|
|
Changing the wording to "in sets" only reinforces the limitation that Bricklink
has imposed where pieces are only listed in colors that have been inventoried
in sets. It would be better to leave it as "known" but then actually include
all the known colors, even those not yet in set inventories.
|
I am going to break down your statements a bit because you have a lot packed
in there, with some incorrect assumptions.
| | Changing the wording to "in sets" only reinforces the limitation that Bricklink
has imposed...
|
It's not a limitation. That's simply what that list of colors IS. It
gets automatically generated. When something gets added to an inventory, it gets
added to that list. When you click on one of the colors on that list, it shows
you what sets the part can be found in (in that color). It's certainly possible
to change how that works, but it's wrong to call the current system a limitation.
In fact, changing it to the way you describe could be seen as a limitation by
some, because it would limit the ability to find where the parts are from.
Changing the title of that section would more accurately reflect what that list
of colors actually is.
| | ... where pieces are only listed in colors that have been inventoried in sets.
|
You left out "on that list." Yes, THAT LIST only lists colors that have been
inventoried, but your statement is broader than that, and is incorrect in the
broader sense. BrickLink DOES list colors that are not inventoried. It just doesn't
do so on the "In Sets" list. (I am going to call it that because that's what
it is, regardless of what it's labelled as.)
There is also a list of colors that are currently for sale. Surely you wouldn't
want "known" colors to be added to the list of colors for sale, if they aren't
actually for sale. It wouldn't belong there because that's not what that
list is for.
There is also a list of colors that people have in their want lists. Surely you
wouldn't want "known" colors to be added to the list of colors on want lists,
if they aren't actually on anyone's want lists. It wouldn't belong
there because that's not what that list is for.
There is also a list of colors that have price guide information. Surely you
wouldn't want "known" colors to be added to the list of colors with price
guide information, if they don't actually have any price guide information.
It wouldn't belong there because that's not what that list is for.
So... Why do you want to add "known" colors to the "In Sets" list? It doesn't
belong there because that's not what that list is for.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 08:52 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | | | | | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
--
Marc.
|
|
|
Changing the wording to "in sets" only reinforces the limitation that Bricklink
has imposed where pieces are only listed in colors that have been inventoried
in sets. It would be better to leave it as "known" but then actually include
all the known colors, even those not yet in set inventories.
|
I am going to break down your statements a bit because you have a lot packed
in there, with some incorrect assumptions.
| | Changing the wording to "in sets" only reinforces the limitation that Bricklink
has imposed...
|
It's not a limitation. That's simply what that list of colors IS. It
gets automatically generated. When something gets added to an inventory, it gets
added to that list. When you click on one of the colors on that list, it shows
you what sets the part can be found in (in that color). It's certainly possible
to change how that works, but it's wrong to call the current system a limitation.
In fact, changing it to the way you describe could be seen as a limitation by
some, because it would limit the ability to find where the parts are from.
Changing the title of that section would more accurately reflect what that list
of colors actually is.
| | ... where pieces are only listed in colors that have been inventoried in sets.
|
You left out "on that list." Yes, THAT LIST only lists colors that have been
inventoried, but your statement is broader than that, and is incorrect in the
broader sense. BrickLink DOES list colors that are not inventoried. It just doesn't
do so on the "In Sets" list. (I am going to call it that because that's what
it is, regardless of what it's labelled as.)
There is also a list of colors that are currently for sale. Surely you wouldn't
want "known" colors to be added to the list of colors for sale, if they aren't
actually for sale. It wouldn't belong there because that's not what that
list is for.
There is also a list of colors that people have in their want lists. Surely you
wouldn't want "known" colors to be added to the list of colors on want lists,
if they aren't actually on anyone's want lists. It wouldn't belong
there because that's not what that list is for.
There is also a list of colors that have price guide information. Surely you
wouldn't want "known" colors to be added to the list of colors with price
guide information, if they don't actually have any price guide information.
It wouldn't belong there because that's not what that list is for.
So... Why do you want to add "known" colors to the "In Sets" list? It doesn't
belong there because that's not what that list is for.
--
Marc.
|
What I'm suggesting is pretty simple: keep the list of "known colors" and
actually include all the known colors on that list, not just the colors inventoried
in sets.
You are suggesting just changing the name to reflect what the list actually includes,
which is fine idea. It should be called what it is.
But that still leaves no place for all those parts not inventoried in certain
colors. Rather than add a fifth list, we could just make the known colors list
an actual list of known colors and include them there.
You suggest leaving the list the same and changing the name. I'm suggesting
leaving the name the same and changing the list.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 09:06 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | | | | | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
|
|
|
|
|
You suggest leaving the list the same and changing the name. I'm suggesting
leaving the name the same and changing the list.
|
Yes. Your suggestion is to remove something that we have (in order to add something
else). I don't want that list removed. But it should be renamed.
I would be fine with adding a new list. Adding something new is fine. Deleting
something that people use is not.
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 09:47 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | | | | | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
|
|
|
|
|
You suggest leaving the list the same and changing the name. I'm suggesting
leaving the name the same and changing the list.
|
Yes. Your suggestion is to remove something that we have (in order to add something
else). I don't want that list removed. But it should be renamed.
I would be fine with adding a new list. Adding something new is fine. Deleting
something that people use is not.
--
Marc.
|
Nothing would have to be removed. The list of known colors could stay exactly
where it is now and have all the same information it does now. It would simply
have all the actual known colors added to it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 10:27 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | | | | | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Simpler solution: rename "known" to "in sets".
|
|
|
|
|
You suggest leaving the list the same and changing the name. I'm suggesting
leaving the name the same and changing the list.
|
Yes. Your suggestion is to remove something that we have (in order to add something
else). I don't want that list removed. But it should be renamed.
I would be fine with adding a new list. Adding something new is fine. Deleting
something that people use is not.
--
Marc.
|
Nothing would have to be removed. The list of known colors could stay exactly
where it is now and have all the same information it does now. It would simply
have all the actual known colors added to it.
|
But, as I have been saying, it is NOT the list of "known" colors. It is the list
of colors that exist in inventories. Which is a useful list! You 2ant to get
rid of the list of colors that exist in sets, and replace it with something else.
And many of us don't want to do that. The list that exists now is useful.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | What I'm suggesting is pretty simple: keep the list of "known colors" and
actually include all the known colors on that list, not just the colors inventoried
in sets.
|
Isn't there some accountability problems with this?
If an inventory is submitted, catmins have to approve it and other people can
check it and call for amendments if it is wrong.
Whereas if I say I have piece XXX in a certain colour, nobody can check it. Should
that part be "known" just because one person claims it exists? I can send a photo
as proof, which may have been photoshopped or the part itself may be fake or
painted.
The information is almost already there anyway. If people want to know if the
part exists, they can currently look in the for sale lists, or in the past six
months sales lists. Sure, if it is so rare that no-one has it for sale or no-one
has sold it, there will be no information on it accessible.
I'd also find it quite annoying if these pars where in the "known" list,
so that when you check to find where they come from, there is no information
on them as they do not come in any sets.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 10:13 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | What I'm suggesting is pretty simple: keep the list of "known colors" and
actually include all the known colors on that list, not just the colors inventoried
in sets.
|
Isn't there some accountability problems with this?
If an inventory is submitted, catmins have to approve it and other people can
check it and call for amendments if it is wrong.
Whereas if I say I have piece XXX in a certain colour, nobody can check it. Should
that part be "known" just because one person claims it exists? I can send a photo
as proof, which may have been photoshopped or the part itself may be fake or
painted.
The information is almost already there anyway. If people want to know if the
part exists, they can currently look in the for sale lists, or in the past six
months sales lists. Sure, if it is so rare that no-one has it for sale or no-one
has sold it, there will be no information on it accessible.
I'd also find it quite annoying if these pars where in the "known" list,
so that when you check to find where they come from, there is no information
on them as they do not come in any sets.
|
An admin would still have to approve any requests, and they could use whatever
verification standard they want. I'd even send them a green 3023old if they
need proof they exist. But I wouldn't have to because fortunately there are
other sources outside Bricklink they could check.
It would be bothersome to have no set information attached, but that might be
fixed. In the case of some classic parts the sets are actually known and are
in the catalog, they just have not been inventoried because nobody has a sealed
one they want to open to verify the contents.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 01:24 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| As someone who owns hundreds, no make that thousands, of 'off colour'
parts (mostly classic parts as you call them) BL can take a hike when it comes
to being an authority on that. Just beacuase it's not in a set, a part may
certainly be out there for sale
One can choose any colour when uploading a part for sale and I think it should
stay that way. If not, I would not have gotten my 2x2 tile in trans-yellow and
my 1x12x3 arches in yellow, both important to me. On the otherhand, I wouldn't
have all this bley crap :/
Cheers,
Ole
In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| |
There are mistakes due to attention to detail, and there are mistakes due to
a lack of knowledge.
There are mistakes where a little bit more knowledge the seller would not have
made.
I like the idea of the verification popup better than the requirement of a test.
I think that most of the mistakes, that I have seen in the orders I have received,
would have been prevented if the seller had been told that the piece they listed
was very rare, and/or not recently (or ever) sold by Lego, and that they should
verify that they really had the piece they were listing.
|
This idea assumes that the Bricklink catalog is accurate.
I once asked that a color be added to the "known color" list for a classic part
and was greeted with snide remarks doubting the depth of my LEGO knowledge and
general skepticism that the part even existed. Then my request was discarded
by the admins.
This is because even though a part was actually produced in a certain color,
and even though you have a hundred of them you'd like to list for sale, and
even though other sellers have verified the part exists in that color, etc.,
unless it has been blessed with inclusion in an inventory it will not be added
as a known color.
So I don't think we should trust Bricklink's catalog to be offering any
kind of definitive check on a part's actual existence. Bricklink still hasn't
resolved the question of whether it wants to be completely accurate or not. Especially
when it comes to classic items, I frequently hear the excuse that Bricklink was
never meant to be a definitive reference and so sellers and collectors of classic
items should just stop asking that those entries be accurate.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | fredjh | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Castleguy121 writes:
| | Keep in mind that the bigger the seller is, then the more mistakes they make.
|
That's a reason, it's not an excuse. There's no excuse for getting
orders wrong and then not making it right (the "sucks to be you" attitude).
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 20:22 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | I am not even certain I think this is a good idea, but I had this thought.
Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
|
Sure ... "How many of this part will fit in a K8 carton ? (+/- 1%)"
Only the hardcore will survive that test.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | goshe7 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 22:43 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
I am not even certain I think this is a good idea, but I had this thought.
Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
Or maybe include some pictures of pieces in some colors that are close, but different
enough to easily identify.
|
Five to ten years ago, I think this could be reasonable. In the past few years,
it seems like the numbers of colors have tremendously increased. Particularly
in the Blue, Purple, Pink, and Green families. I almost exclusively sell new
parts and rely heavily on the BL catalog to ensure that the colors are listed
correctly.
Differentiating Light Gray and Light Bluish Gray? Easy.
Differentiating Lavender and Medium Lavendar? Not so easy for me.
Differentiating Metallic from Pearl? Not always easy for me.
| |
Or maybe a better idea is to present sellers with a verification popup, when
listing certain part/color combinations.
- Anytime a color is listed, that is no longer in production, a popup asking
the seller to verify the color, and telling them the color has not been produced
since (year), would avoid some errors.
- Anytime it is a part/color combination, that is not one that is known to have
been in any set, a verification popup would be useful.
|
I like this latter idea, a lot. Easy enough to check and helps prevent mistake
listings.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2015 22:44 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, goshe7 writes:
| | | | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
I am not even certain I think this is a good idea, but I had this thought.
Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
Or maybe include some pictures of pieces in some colors that are close, but different
enough to easily identify.
|
Five to ten years ago, I think this could be reasonable. In the past few years,
it seems like the numbers of colors have tremendously increased. Particularly
in the Blue, Purple, Pink, and Green families. I almost exclusively sell new
parts and rely heavily on the BL catalog to ensure that the colors are listed
correctly.
|
You might find this interesting:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15801189140/
Colors have definitely been increasing in the past few years, but nothing compared
to how many colors there were in the early-aughts.
Ryan
| |
Differentiating Light Gray and Light Bluish Gray? Easy.
Differentiating Lavender and Medium Lavendar? Not so easy for me.
Differentiating Metallic from Pearl? Not always easy for me.
| |
Or maybe a better idea is to present sellers with a verification popup, when
listing certain part/color combinations.
- Anytime a color is listed, that is no longer in production, a popup asking
the seller to verify the color, and telling them the color has not been produced
since (year), would avoid some errors.
- Anytime it is a part/color combination, that is not one that is known to have
been in any set, a verification popup would be useful.
|
I like this latter idea, a lot. Easy enough to check and helps prevent mistake
listings.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 01:47 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| lego dots? = you've failed!
In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | I am not even certain I think this is a good idea, but I had this thought.
Suppose Bricklink required that one pass a simple test, before being able to
sell on Bricklink.
The test would require that one be able to use the catalog, to verify the part
and color that they are offering for sale.
Such things as the length in dots (or diameter in case of something like a rubber
band) could be done with pictures (like showing something that is 5 lego dots
long, next to a Lego plate, aligned so one can see how many dots long it is,
and having them select the correct length from multiple choices).
Or maybe include some pictures of pieces in some colors that are close, but different
enough to easily identify.
Or maybe a better idea is to present sellers with a verification popup, when
listing certain part/color combinations.
- Anytime a color is listed, that is no longer in production, a popup asking
the seller to verify the color, and telling them the color has not been produced
since (year), would avoid some errors.
- Anytime it is a part/color combination, that is not one that is known to have
been in any set, a verification popup would be useful.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 05:49 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I'm voting no. Just because someone passes a test doesn't mean they will
not make a mistake in future.
Having to pass a simple test to join the sellers' club will be simple. Being
able to perform under more pressure is not so simple.
If they really want to do a test on me, BL can place let's say 10 large orders
in my store, pay for them and manually check the parts that I send them.
Or they could get 10 buyers to place the orders instead, and give the world feedback
as to how accurate my parts picking is, along with how they perceived I performed.
They could then get another 10 buyers to do the same and leave similar feedback,
and then another 10, and so on ...
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Made_In_Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2015 09:16 | | Subject: | Re: Require sellers to pass a test before selling | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Voted yes for the concept of the idea, but it could be refined.
I think it would be easy to make a test that sellers can take, perhaps once a
year, and they would get a certification.
Then on my store page it could say "Maintained by BrickItYourself (2928) Certified
Bricklink Seller 99.54% Positive Feedback from 3799 orders"
instead of
Maintained by BrickItYourself (2928) 99.54% Positive Feedback from 3799 orders
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oregon
United Kingdom, Scotland
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Alberta
Denmark
