|
 |
| | | Author: | bb284951  | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 01:08 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Yellow {3626bp01 Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Stud Hollow to 3626ap01 Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Stud Solid}
Comments from Submitter:
cas121 in set 6077 head is solid stud- not hollow
change 3626bp01 to 3626ap01-all the minifigs have solid stud in this set
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 01:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Faelynn writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Yellow {3626bp01 Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Stud Hollow to 3626ap01 Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Stud Solid}
Comments from Submitter:
cas121 in set 6077 head is solid stud- not hollow
change 3626bp01 to 3626ap01-all the minifigs have solid stud in this set
|
A little background reading:
http://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?overTP=Y&q=3626ap01+&qS=Y&qM=Y&msgID=&uName=&ID=&status=&v=c&max=100
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | par016 | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 02:13 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Faelynn writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Yellow {3626bp01 Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Stud Hollow to 3626ap01 Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Stud Solid}
Comments from Submitter:
cas121 in set 6077 head is solid stud- not hollow
change 3626bp01 to 3626ap01-all the minifigs have solid stud in this set
|
For the lazy:
Heads - For figures with movable arms and legs always use a head with an
open stud. When there are 2 entries in the catalog for the same head, one with
an open stud and one with a solid stud, always use the one with an open stud.
Only figures using old type torsos and/or legs (part no 17 and 15 respectively)
can have solid stud heads.
-Pete
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | crepundi | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 03:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | Heads - For figures with movable arms and legs always use a head with an
open stud. When there are 2 entries in the catalog for the same head, one with
an open stud and one with a solid stud, always use the one with an open stud.
Only figures using old type torsos and/or legs (part no 17 and 15 respectively)
can have solid stud heads.
-Pete
|
... but then there is hardly any use for the standard grin heads. The figures
with torso 17 and legs 15 have no face.
The solid stud standard grin is only listed in the sets 9353, 9354 and 9452.
Those figures do have movable arms and legs. And some pirates' heads like
* | | 3626apb06 Minifigure, Head Standard Grin with Red Messy Hair, Moustache, and Vertical Lines Beard, Black Eye Patch Pattern - Solid Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
have no use at all.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 04:14 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, crepundi writes:
| | | | Heads - For figures with movable arms and legs always use a head with an
open stud. When there are 2 entries in the catalog for the same head, one with
an open stud and one with a solid stud, always use the one with an open stud.
Only figures using old type torsos and/or legs (part no 17 and 15 respectively)
can have solid stud heads.
-Pete
|
... but then there is hardly any use for the standard grin heads. The figures
with torso 17 and legs 15 have no face.
The solid stud standard grin is only listed in the sets 9353, 9354 and 9452.
Those figures do have movable arms and legs. And some pirates' heads like
* | | 3626apb06 Minifigure, Head Standard Grin with Red Messy Hair, Moustache, and Vertical Lines Beard, Black Eye Patch Pattern - Solid Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
have no use at all.
|
You are correct. Time to fix it. No reason not to. None. About a dozen good reasons
to fix it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, crepundi writes:
| | | | Heads - For figures with movable arms and legs always use a head with an
open stud. When there are 2 entries in the catalog for the same head, one with
an open stud and one with a solid stud, always use the one with an open stud.
Only figures using old type torsos and/or legs (part no 17 and 15 respectively)
can have solid stud heads.
-Pete
|
... but then there is hardly any use for the standard grin heads. The figures
with torso 17 and legs 15 have no face.
The solid stud standard grin is only listed in the sets 9353, 9354 and 9452.
Those figures do have movable arms and legs. And some pirates' heads like
* | | 3626apb06 Minifigure, Head Standard Grin with Red Messy Hair, Moustache, and Vertical Lines Beard, Black Eye Patch Pattern - Solid Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
have no use at all.
|
You are correct. Time to fix it. No reason not to. None. About a dozen good reasons
to fix it.
|
What do you suggest as a plan of attack? Do you propose we change the inventories,
or do we add new entries to the catalog? If we change the inventories, should
we notify people who have the figs and/or sets with those figs for sale?
If we add new entries to the catalog, we are still adding a new restriction on
sellers. People will no longer be able to sell a new head on an old minifig.
For those of us that would never mix the new with the old, this is not an issue
of course. But what about people who don't see the difference as being major,
and want to continue substituting newer heads?
My last point - there are other parts of the minifigure that have variants. A
few to mention:
• torso - inside supports
• hands - material and design
• helmet - chin strap thickness, visor dimples
• air tanks - material
• printing of the smile
• printing of the eyes
The stud variation on the head is likely the easiest to spot, but when the minifig
is assembled, some of these other differences are arguably more important. Where
do we draw the line, then, when it comes to variations? After we handle the stud
issue, are we going to have to start the process all over again when people want
the inventories to account for some other variation?
I'm not trying to stall on this issue - I think these questions are worth
asking, and I'm interested to see people's responses.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, crepundi writes:
| | | | Heads - For figures with movable arms and legs always use a head with an
open stud. When there are 2 entries in the catalog for the same head, one with
an open stud and one with a solid stud, always use the one with an open stud.
Only figures using old type torsos and/or legs (part no 17 and 15 respectively)
can have solid stud heads.
-Pete
|
... but then there is hardly any use for the standard grin heads. The figures
with torso 17 and legs 15 have no face.
The solid stud standard grin is only listed in the sets 9353, 9354 and 9452.
Those figures do have movable arms and legs. And some pirates' heads like
* | | 3626apb06 Minifigure, Head Standard Grin with Red Messy Hair, Moustache, and Vertical Lines Beard, Black Eye Patch Pattern - Solid Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
have no use at all.
|
You are correct. Time to fix it. No reason not to. None. About a dozen good reasons
to fix it.
|
What do you suggest as a plan of attack? Do you propose we change the inventories,
or do we add new entries to the catalog? If we change the inventories, should
we notify people who have the figs and/or sets with those figs for sale?
If we add new entries to the catalog, we are still adding a new restriction on
sellers. People will no longer be able to sell a new head on an old minifig.
For those of us that would never mix the new with the old, this is not an issue
of course. But what about people who don't see the difference as being major,
and want to continue substituting newer heads?
My last point - there are other parts of the minifigure that have variants. A
few to mention:
• torso - inside supports
• hands - material and design
• helmet - chin strap thickness, visor dimples
• air tanks - material
• printing of the smile
• printing of the eyes
The stud variation on the head is likely the easiest to spot, but when the minifig
is assembled, some of these other differences are arguably more important. Where
do we draw the line, then, when it comes to variations? After we handle the stud
issue, are we going to have to start the process all over again when people want
the inventories to account for some other variation?
I'm not trying to stall on this issue - I think these questions are worth
asking, and I'm interested to see people's responses.
Russell
|
What's so difficult about having two versions of the figure? A & B.
One has hollow and one has solid?
Andy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | crepundi | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 13:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | What's so difficult about having two versions of the figure? A & B.
One has hollow and one has solid?
Andy
|
I think it's not necessary to make new catalog entries for the same figure
with a different stud. I would just handle it the same way as set inventories:
if there are several versions, for example set xxx-1 comes with a cone 4589 and
later the same set has cone 4589b, it doesn't get a new catalog entry like
set xxx-1a (with cone 4589) and xxx-1b (with 4589b) or even a xxx-1 (undetermined)
those differences will just be listed as alternate parts. Minifigs have their
own inventory. Why shouldn't be alternate parts be possible for them as well?
In my opinion this would even decrease the number of the various figures, because
helmets with thin/thick chinstraps, dimples/no dimples etc. could also be handled
like this.
Gisela.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 13:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, crepundi writes:
| | | | What's so difficult about having two versions of the figure? A & B.
One has hollow and one has solid?
Andy
|
I think it's not necessary to make new catalog entries for the same figure
with a different stud. I would just handle it the same way as set inventories:
if there are several versions, for example set xxx-1 comes with a cone 4589 and
later the same set has cone 4589b, it doesn't get a new catalog entry like
set xxx-1a (with cone 4589) and xxx-1b (with 4589b) or even a xxx-1 (undetermined)
those differences will just be listed as alternate parts. Minifigs have their
own inventory. Why shouldn't be alternate parts be possible for them as well?
In my opinion this would even decrease the number of the various figures, because
helmets with thin/thick chinstraps, dimples/no dimples etc. could also be handled
like this.
Gisela.
|
Alternate parts for minifigs would only work if there would be a distinct assignment
for specific minifig variants to specific sets. Otherwise a minifig which came
with both head variants would show in old and new set inventories, which is as
misleading as now.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 13:55 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | Alternate parts for minifigs would only work if there would be a distinct assignment
for specific minifig variants to specific sets. Otherwise a minifig which came
with both head variants would show in old and new set inventories, which is as
misleading as now.
|
I agree it's not perfect, but at least it's 'something' and it
would be more then what is in place now... Many c-types heads aren't attached
to figs either, yet they exist and appeared in the figs, along with b-type heads.
Alternate heads in minifigs is simply the easiest solution, regardless wether
not intirely correct when it comes down to pure 'a' type figs, but at
least it would be better then it is now IMO
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, crepundi writes:
| | | | Heads - For figures with movable arms and legs always use a head with an
open stud. When there are 2 entries in the catalog for the same head, one with
an open stud and one with a solid stud, always use the one with an open stud.
Only figures using old type torsos and/or legs (part no 17 and 15 respectively)
can have solid stud heads.
-Pete
|
... but then there is hardly any use for the standard grin heads. The figures
with torso 17 and legs 15 have no face.
The solid stud standard grin is only listed in the sets 9353, 9354 and 9452.
Those figures do have movable arms and legs. And some pirates' heads like
* | | 3626apb06 Minifigure, Head Standard Grin with Red Messy Hair, Moustache, and Vertical Lines Beard, Black Eye Patch Pattern - Solid Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
have no use at all.
|
You are correct. Time to fix it. No reason not to. None. About a dozen good reasons
to fix it.
|
What do you suggest as a plan of attack? Do you propose we change the inventories,
or do we add new entries to the catalog? If we change the inventories, should
we notify people who have the figs and/or sets with those figs for sale?
If we add new entries to the catalog, we are still adding a new restriction on
sellers. People will no longer be able to sell a new head on an old minifig.
For those of us that would never mix the new with the old, this is not an issue
of course. But what about people who don't see the difference as being major,
and want to continue substituting newer heads?
My last point - there are other parts of the minifigure that have variants. A
few to mention:
• torso - inside supports
• hands - material and design
• helmet - chin strap thickness, visor dimples
• air tanks - material
• printing of the smile
• printing of the eyes
The stud variation on the head is likely the easiest to spot, but when the minifig
is assembled, some of these other differences are arguably more important. Where
do we draw the line, then, when it comes to variations? After we handle the stud
issue, are we going to have to start the process all over again when people want
the inventories to account for some other variation?
I'm not trying to stall on this issue - I think these questions are worth
asking, and I'm interested to see people's responses.
Russell
|
What's so difficult about having two versions of the figure? A & B.
One has hollow and one has solid?
Andy
|
That's really what would have to be done for some of them, but for most of
the ones in question, all we need is the A version. But the task of adding all
those figures (plus inventorying them) is a colossal amount of work.
I just ran a search and came up with 455 matches of these heads from 1978 through
1989. In 2014, BL added 593 minifig inventories. In 2013 it was 540. So we are
talking about adding roughly 80% of a year's worth of entries, on top of
what we have coming down the pike for 2015.
On top of that, I am not confident the old entry would be retained in cases where
B versions exist. Sellers' listings under the old entry are at least (in
my estimation) 50% solid stud, regardless of what the current inventories show.
So figure 50 to 100 new entries for that, and we could very well be up to an
entire year's worth of new approvals.
Then all those old entries would be marked for deletion and sitting around for
years, and buyers would have to look in two places to find any minifig from that
classic 12 year period.
I honestly don't see the creation of new entries as a practical solution
to this. These are the oldest figs, good images would be all the harder to get,
and there would certainly be hang-ups in the process as we would be confronted
with errors from the past involving other variable parts, like the helmets.
What I envision is to deal with this exceptional situation with an exceptional
solution. Normally minifig entries are not changed, but I think a case can be
made here that the reasons that fig entries aren't typically changed do not
hold true in this situation. Like I mentioned above, 50% or more of the listings
are (arguably) wrong to begin with, so by changing over to the solid stud, we
would actually be improving the accuracy of sellers.
And sellers are not typically notified of inventory changes, but considering
the broad scope of what is involved, and the fact that the site's own policies
have contributed to the problem, I don't see why an exception cannot be made
here, as well. Without doing any calculations, I would estimate a change such
as this to only involve between 15% and 25% of sellers anyway, so were not talking
about 8000 emails.
Maybe I'm fear mongering - I'd be interested to hear another perspective.
But the closer I look at this, the more I am inclined toward a simpler transition.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, crepundi writes:
| | | | Heads - For figures with movable arms and legs always use a head with an
open stud. When there are 2 entries in the catalog for the same head, one with
an open stud and one with a solid stud, always use the one with an open stud.
Only figures using old type torsos and/or legs (part no 17 and 15 respectively)
can have solid stud heads.
-Pete
|
... but then there is hardly any use for the standard grin heads. The figures
with torso 17 and legs 15 have no face.
The solid stud standard grin is only listed in the sets 9353, 9354 and 9452.
Those figures do have movable arms and legs. And some pirates' heads like
* | | 3626apb06 Minifigure, Head Standard Grin with Red Messy Hair, Moustache, and Vertical Lines Beard, Black Eye Patch Pattern - Solid Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
have no use at all.
|
You are correct. Time to fix it. No reason not to. None. About a dozen good reasons
to fix it.
|
What do you suggest as a plan of attack? Do you propose we change the inventories,
or do we add new entries to the catalog? If we change the inventories, should
we notify people who have the figs and/or sets with those figs for sale?
If we add new entries to the catalog, we are still adding a new restriction on
sellers. People will no longer be able to sell a new head on an old minifig.
For those of us that would never mix the new with the old, this is not an issue
of course. But what about people who don't see the difference as being major,
and want to continue substituting newer heads?
My last point - there are other parts of the minifigure that have variants. A
few to mention:
• torso - inside supports
• hands - material and design
• helmet - chin strap thickness, visor dimples
• air tanks - material
• printing of the smile
• printing of the eyes
The stud variation on the head is likely the easiest to spot, but when the minifig
is assembled, some of these other differences are arguably more important. Where
do we draw the line, then, when it comes to variations? After we handle the stud
issue, are we going to have to start the process all over again when people want
the inventories to account for some other variation?
I'm not trying to stall on this issue - I think these questions are worth
asking, and I'm interested to see people's responses.
Russell
|
What's so difficult about having two versions of the figure? A & B.
One has hollow and one has solid?
Andy
|
That's really what would have to be done for some of them, but for most of
the ones in question, all we need is the A version. But the task of adding all
those figures (plus inventorying them) is a colossal amount of work.
I just ran a search and came up with 455 matches of these heads from 1978 through
1989. In 2014, BL added 593 minifig inventories. In 2013 it was 540. So we are
talking about adding roughly 80% of a year's worth of entries, on top of
what we have coming down the pike for 2015.
On top of that, I am not confident the old entry would be retained in cases where
B versions exist. Sellers' listings under the old entry are at least (in
my estimation) 50% solid stud, regardless of what the current inventories show.
So figure 50 to 100 new entries for that, and we could very well be up to an
entire year's worth of new approvals.
Then all those old entries would be marked for deletion and sitting around for
years, and buyers would have to look in two places to find any minifig from that
classic 12 year period.
I honestly don't see the creation of new entries as a practical solution
to this. These are the oldest figs, good images would be all the harder to get,
and there would certainly be hang-ups in the process as we would be confronted
with errors from the past involving other variable parts, like the helmets.
What I envision is to deal with this exceptional situation with an exceptional
solution. Normally minifig entries are not changed, but I think a case can be
made here that the reasons that fig entries aren't typically changed do not
hold true in this situation. Like I mentioned above, 50% or more of the listings
are (arguably) wrong to begin with, so by changing over to the solid stud, we
would actually be improving the accuracy of sellers.
And sellers are not typically notified of inventory changes, but considering
the broad scope of what is involved, and the fact that the site's own policies
have contributed to the problem, I don't see why an exception cannot be made
here, as well. Without doing any calculations, I would estimate a change such
as this to only involve between 15% and 25% of sellers anyway, so were not talking
about 8000 emails.
Maybe I'm fear mongering - I'd be interested to hear another perspective.
But the closer I look at this, the more I am inclined toward a simpler transition.
Russell
|
Let's look at precedent, Russell.
On Dec. 11, 2014, this minifig inventory was changed to remove a hollow stud
head and replace it with a recessed stud head with the same pattern: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=M&itemNo=twn204&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
Was any action taken to notify sellers? Did admins receive any outcry? I'm
not asking rhetorically, I'm wondering what the response was.
On Feb. 27, 2014, the helmet in this Classic Space minifig inventory was
changed from undetermined visor dimples to visor dimples: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=M&itemNo=sp005&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
This seems very much like what we're asking for here. An inventory item from
a classic figure was changed from an "undetermined" type to a specific part.
That means anyone listing it with a no-dimple helmet had a "wrong" figure listed.
Were there any complaints? Did it result in catalog or inventory problems? It
was almost a year ago, so I would think any issues would have arisen by now.
I think if we can correct the helmet type on a classic figure without the world
caving in we could change the head type as well. Precedent would seem to support
the change, unless these examples caused problems I'm not aware of. These
are only two fairly recent examples - there are certainly more that could be
looked at to judge the ramifications.
Regarding the other variations, those are a separate issue for the most part
because they are variations. Those issues could be addressed if and when alternates
are allowed for minifig inventories. In the case of classic minifigs prior to
the change in head mold, this is not a question of variations - there was no
variation in the heads (at least none that are currently recognized in the catalog.
If the cat admins want to add the square heads, the smiles, etc. as variations
on the solid-stud basic grin we can cross that bridge then. For now, it's
pretty clear.)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2015 00:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
Here's another example, even more recent (resulting from my first obvious
blunder as an admin  ):
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemType=M&itemNo=twn226&viewDate=Y&viewStatus=1
...except that in this case the inventory had only been "live" for 2 days and
there were no listings for sale.
But your point is well taken. And speaking of listings for sale, your first example
also illustrates a rather prominent loophole in the system:
* | | twn204 (Inv) Shirt with Female Rainbow Stars Pattern, Dark Azure Short Legs, Glasses, Dark Brown Hair
Minifigures: Town |
This minifig was added to the catalog May 22, 2014. On Nov. 3, it was inventoried
with the "b" type head. On Dec. 11, the head was corrected to the "c" type. But
between the time it was added to the catalog and when it was inventoried, 46
minifigs were listed for sale and were not sold. And according to the price guide,
at least 7 had been listed and sold during that time as well.
So of the 72 items for sale, over 50 were listed with no inventory to refer to.
But there was no outcry over this, either - it's just accepted that most
of these are from partouts, and the right type of head is going to be there anyway.
And in this case, btw, how many of those listings have heads with eyelashes?
* | | twn204a (Inv) Shirt with Female Rainbow Stars Pattern, Dark Azure Short Legs, Glasses, Eyelashes, Dark Brown Hair
Minifigures: Town |
Considering this situation happens regularly with the newer figs, it makes it
even harder to take the "solid stud" period listings that seriously. Sure, I
think BL sellers are generally honest about variations, but I also think a lot
of them are oblivious to such details.
There is also an unwritten rule that sellers are only bound by a BL inventory
in the state it was in when the item was listed for sale. Hence why we have no
notification system for completed change requests, and undoubtedly one of the
primary reasons we have a change log.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 13:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | What do you suggest as a plan of attack? Do you propose we change the inventories,
or do we add new entries to the catalog? If we change the inventories, should
we notify people who have the figs and/or sets with those figs for sale?
If we add new entries to the catalog, we are still adding a new restriction on
sellers. People will no longer be able to sell a new head on an old minifig.
For those of us that would never mix the new with the old, this is not an issue
of course. But what about people who don't see the difference as being major,
and want to continue substituting newer heads?
My last point - there are other parts of the minifigure that have variants. A
few to mention:
• torso - inside supports
• hands - material and design
• helmet - chin strap thickness, visor dimples
• air tanks - material
• printing of the smile
• printing of the eyes
The stud variation on the head is likely the easiest to spot, but when the minifig
is assembled, some of these other differences are arguably more important. Where
do we draw the line, then, when it comes to variations? After we handle the stud
issue, are we going to have to start the process all over again when people want
the inventories to account for some other variation?
I'm not trying to stall on this issue - I think these questions are worth
asking, and I'm interested to see people's responses.
Russell
|
The plan of attack is simple: leave everything as is (*), sellers can put all
details in descriptions, the buyers will search for the right mold in the listings
*if* they care.
(*)when it comes down to solid stud heads, the answer is also simple: ask the
programmers to program the option of alternate heads and they will be added to
the inventory of the figs, sellers can then specify (as usual) if they like to
deferentiate. It doesn't mess up any existing listing, doesn't need new
entries (will only clutter up the catalog) and we will still have a clue where
some heads belong to.
BL is a marketplace, not a history catalog database, there are other sites
for that. Doesn't mean we can't strive for better and more accurate data,
but common sense (with the word marketplace in the back of our heads) needs to
remain in place IMHO
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | What do you suggest as a plan of attack? Do you propose we change the inventories,
or do we add new entries to the catalog? If we change the inventories, should
we notify people who have the figs and/or sets with those figs for sale?
If we add new entries to the catalog, we are still adding a new restriction on
sellers. People will no longer be able to sell a new head on an old minifig.
For those of us that would never mix the new with the old, this is not an issue
of course. But what about people who don't see the difference as being major,
and want to continue substituting newer heads?
My last point - there are other parts of the minifigure that have variants. A
few to mention:
• torso - inside supports
• hands - material and design
• helmet - chin strap thickness, visor dimples
• air tanks - material
• printing of the smile
• printing of the eyes
The stud variation on the head is likely the easiest to spot, but when the minifig
is assembled, some of these other differences are arguably more important. Where
do we draw the line, then, when it comes to variations? After we handle the stud
issue, are we going to have to start the process all over again when people want
the inventories to account for some other variation?
I'm not trying to stall on this issue - I think these questions are worth
asking, and I'm interested to see people's responses.
Russell
|
The plan of attack is simple: leave everything as is (*), sellers can put all
details in descriptions, the buyers will search for the right mold in the listings
*if* they care.
(*)when it comes down to solid stud heads, the answer is also simple: ask the
programmers to program the option of alternate heads and they will be added to
the inventory of the figs, sellers can then specify (as usual) if they like to
deferentiate. It doesn't mess up any existing listing, doesn't need new
entries (will only clutter up the catalog) and we will still have a clue where
some heads belong to.
BL is a marketplace, not a history catalog database, there are other sites
for that. Doesn't mean we can't strive for better and more accurate data,
but common sense (with the word marketplace in the back of our heads) needs to
remain in place IMHO
|
For those of us who sell classic minifigs, this is a marketplace
issue. It is good for buyers and sellers to have the inventory accurate. It is
especially important with these classic minifigs, some of which have been re-issued
with modern parts. It's no different than any other collectible item.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 14:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | For those of us who sell classic minifigs, this is a marketplace
issue. It is good for buyers and sellers to have the inventory accurate. It is
especially important with these classic minifigs, some of which have been re-issued
with modern parts. It's no different than any other collectible item.
|
There hasn't been an issue in 15 years to buy or sell classic minifigs 
Fine tuners always find their way, regardless of how an inventory is presented,
I know I always have 
Doesn't mean the whole catalog needs to be turned up side down, with the
side effect buyers will loose their way around, hundreds of items will need to
be re-created, others will need to be marked for deletion, inventories will need
to be changed etc etc etc. Just for the purpose of a few dozen sellers who pay
attention to listing mold differences  Like I said previously: Use the descriptions
and buyers who care will find you, it has always been like that, for many items
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 18:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, 62Bricks writes:
| | For those of us who sell classic minifigs, this is a marketplace
issue. It is good for buyers and sellers to have the inventory accurate. It is
especially important with these classic minifigs, some of which have been re-issued
with modern parts. It's no different than any other collectible item.
|
There hasn't been an issue in 15 years to buy or sell classic minifigs
Fine tuners always find their way, regardless of how an inventory is presented,
I know I always have
Doesn't mean the whole catalog needs to be turned up side down, with the
side effect buyers will loose their way around, hundreds of items will need to
be re-created, others will need to be marked for deletion, inventories will need
to be changed etc etc etc. Just for the purpose of a few dozen sellers who pay
attention to listing mold differences Like I said previously: Use the descriptions
and buyers who care will find you, it has always been like that, for many items
|
Why do we have the capability to request and make inventory changes at all, then?
If there is no need for accurate listings in order for sellers to operate, let's
freeze the catalog now, get rid of the admins, and stop all these supposed troubles
that come with having an accurate catalog.
When LEGO makes new sets in the future, you can just list them under an old set
number and add a note "This is not actually set 1234-1 like the listing says,
it's set 4321-1." If they introduce a new color, just list parts under any
old color and add a note that the buyer will be receiving something completely
different than what it says on the invoice or in the inventory.
Easy!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2015 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | Fine tuners always find their way, regardless of how an inventory is presented,
I know I always have
|
Well this is so true. It's rather humbling, in fact, to realize that despite
our trying to get everything right, at some point what really counts is the people
using the system. And most BrickLinkers do take things with a grain of salt.
If something doesn't match up, they just say so in the listing.
One of the great things about BL is its flexibility - sellers can add lots of
notes, use a custom image, and even use custom weight, or design a complete custom
entry from scratch. And buyers can ask questions, too.
However, getting these heads right for the early inventories would put and end
to one more of those things newcomers have to learn as a rite of passage, and
it would allow some of our contributors to focus their energies on other areas
of improvement.
| | Doesn't mean the whole catalog needs to be turned up side down, with the
side effect buyers will loose their way around, hundreds of items will need to
be re-created, others will need to be marked for deletion, inventories will need
to be changed etc etc etc.
|
As I have mentioned, I am in favor of a simpler solution. 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 14:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | What do you suggest as a plan of attack? Do you propose we change the inventories,
or do we add new entries to the catalog? If we change the inventories, should
we notify people who have the figs and/or sets with those figs for sale?
If we add new entries to the catalog, we are still adding a new restriction on
sellers. People will no longer be able to sell a new head on an old minifig.
For those of us that would never mix the new with the old, this is not an issue
of course. But what about people who don't see the difference as being major,
and want to continue substituting newer heads?
My last point - there are other parts of the minifigure that have variants. A
few to mention:
• torso - inside supports
• hands - material and design
• helmet - chin strap thickness, visor dimples
• air tanks - material
• printing of the smile
• printing of the eyes
The stud variation on the head is likely the easiest to spot, but when the minifig
is assembled, some of these other differences are arguably more important. Where
do we draw the line, then, when it comes to variations? After we handle the stud
issue, are we going to have to start the process all over again when people want
the inventories to account for some other variation?
I'm not trying to stall on this issue - I think these questions are worth
asking, and I'm interested to see people's responses.
Russell
|
The plan of attack is simple: leave everything as is (*), sellers can put all
details in descriptions, the buyers will search for the right mold in the listings
*if* they care.
(*)when it comes down to solid stud heads, the answer is also simple: ask the
programmers to program the option of alternate heads and they will be added to
the inventory of the figs, sellers can then specify (as usual) if they like to
deferentiate. It doesn't mess up any existing listing, doesn't need new
entries (will only clutter up the catalog) and we will still have a clue where
some heads belong to.
BL is a marketplace, not a history catalog database, there are other sites
for that. Doesn't mean we can't strive for better and more accurate data,
but common sense (with the word marketplace in the back of our heads) needs to
remain in place IMHO
|
I would be inclined to agree with you on your first point, except for the fact
that the "b" entry for the head *is* a determined version, expressly stating
"Stud Hollow".
[p=3626bp01]
So it's not a question of sellers adding more specifics to their listings.
The specificity is built into the Item Name.
And regarding alternate parts for minifigs, I think this would require a whole
rebuild of the inventory system. If we added alternates to minifigs with the
present system configuration, partouts would end up with both versions, because
minifigs are not on the same virtual level as parts. For this same reason, I
believe, counterparts are not included in part outs because it would result in
duplicate listings. Changing something like that would *not* be simple. And there
is also the side effect of the alternate part skewing the year of release.
And from a Marketplace point of view, the site may not want alternate parts in
minifigs for reasons of product consistency. I personally would not be interested
in buying a classic fig where sellers have the option of substituting less expensive
versions of parts.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | I would be inclined to agree with you on your first point, except for the fact
that the "b" entry for the head *is* a determined version, expressly stating
"Stud Hollow".
[p=3626bp01]
So it's not a question of sellers adding more specifics to their listings.
The specificity is built into the Item Name.
|
Yep, but as you stated yourself, many sellers list with the solid stud and say
nothing, other list older figs with the b type while 'history' tells
us differently, and then there are sellers who put such in the descriptions.
Ultimatly, when listing figs, one could have a tag for the specific mold, but
that needs more coding.
| |
And regarding alternate parts for minifigs, I think this would require a whole
rebuild of the inventory system. If we added alternates to minifigs with the
present system configuration, partouts would end up with both versions, because
minifigs are not on the same virtual level as parts. For this same reason, I
believe, counterparts are not included in part outs because it would result in
duplicate listings. Changing something like that would *not* be simple. And there
is also the side effect of the alternate part skewing the year of release.
|
So what Don't see the point, people need to choose between part mold now
by checking their set, if the fig is parted out as well, it would need a special
Match ID, but that's it, seller would still need to choose on the 'part'
level between the 2 heads, like they do with other parts.
| |
And from a Marketplace point of view, the site may not want alternate parts in
minifigs for reasons of product consistency. I personally would not be interested
in buying a classic fig where sellers have the option of substituting less expensive
versions of parts.
|
Besides the point as *now* all classic figs have the wrong head, so right now,
if the seller doesn't indicate a thing, you're still on the same playing
ground. Alternate heads with an indicator for the sellers to use would be better.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | What do you suggest as a plan of attack? Do you propose we change the inventories,
or do we add new entries to the catalog? If we change the inventories, should
we notify people who have the figs and/or sets with those figs for sale?
If we add new entries to the catalog, we are still adding a new restriction on
sellers. People will no longer be able to sell a new head on an old minifig.
For those of us that would never mix the new with the old, this is not an issue
of course. But what about people who don't see the difference as being major,
and want to continue substituting newer heads?
My last point - there are other parts of the minifigure that have variants. A
few to mention:
• torso - inside supports
• hands - material and design
• helmet - chin strap thickness, visor dimples
• air tanks - material
• printing of the smile
• printing of the eyes
The stud variation on the head is likely the easiest to spot, but when the minifig
is assembled, some of these other differences are arguably more important. Where
do we draw the line, then, when it comes to variations? After we handle the stud
issue, are we going to have to start the process all over again when people want
the inventories to account for some other variation?
I'm not trying to stall on this issue - I think these questions are worth
asking, and I'm interested to see people's responses.
Russell
|
The plan of attack is simple: leave everything as is (*), sellers can put all
details in descriptions, the buyers will search for the right mold in the listings
*if* they care.
(*)when it comes down to solid stud heads, the answer is also simple: ask the
programmers to program the option of alternate heads and they will be added to
the inventory of the figs, sellers can then specify (as usual) if they like to
deferentiate. It doesn't mess up any existing listing, doesn't need new
entries (will only clutter up the catalog) and we will still have a clue where
some heads belong to.
BL is a marketplace, not a history catalog database, there are other sites
for that. Doesn't mean we can't strive for better and more accurate data,
but common sense (with the word marketplace in the back of our heads) needs to
remain in place IMHO
|
I would be inclined to agree with you on your first point, except for the fact
that the "b" entry for the head *is* a determined version, expressly stating
"Stud Hollow".
[p=3626bp01]
So it's not a question of sellers adding more specifics to their listings.
The specificity is built into the Item Name.
|
It is a question of adding more specifics to the name in the *minifig* listing,
as the minifig names do not specify the head stud type.
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=therobo&itemID=64925049
| |
And regarding alternate parts for minifigs, I think this would require a whole
rebuild of the inventory system. If we added alternates to minifigs with the
present system configuration, partouts would end up with both versions, because
minifigs are not on the same virtual level as parts. For this same reason, I
believe, counterparts are not included in part outs because it would result in
duplicate listings. Changing something like that would *not* be simple. And there
is also the side effect of the alternate part skewing the year of release.
And from a Marketplace point of view, the site may not want alternate parts in
minifigs for reasons of product consistency. I personally would not be interested
in buying a classic fig where sellers have the option of substituting less expensive
versions of parts.
|
That's correct. When having alternates in minifig inventories buyers would
still not know which version they buy. But it would be up to the IAs to only
allow alternates in those minifg inventories which demonstrably came with both
variants.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 16:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
|
| | | | I would be inclined to agree with you on your first point, except for the fact
that the "b" entry for the head *is* a determined version, expressly stating
"Stud Hollow".
[p=3626bp01]
So it's not a question of sellers adding more specifics to their listings.
The specificity is built into the Item Name.
|
It is a question of adding more specifics to the name in the *minifig* listing,
as the minifig names do not specify the head stud type.
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=therobo&itemID=64925049
|
But if sellers are not bound by the variant in the inventory, then why would
it be an issue at all to change the head? I realise a lot of people never really
look at inventories closely when selling, but all along I have thought this was
the main objection to change - that it may cause some people's listings to
be in error.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 16:58 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
|
| | | | I would be inclined to agree with you on your first point, except for the fact
that the "b" entry for the head *is* a determined version, expressly stating
"Stud Hollow".
[p=3626bp01]
So it's not a question of sellers adding more specifics to their listings.
The specificity is built into the Item Name.
|
It is a question of adding more specifics to the name in the *minifig* listing,
as the minifig names do not specify the head stud type.
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=therobo&itemID=64925049
|
But if sellers are not bound by the variant in the inventory, then why would
it be an issue at all to change the head? I realise a lot of people never really
look at inventories closely when selling, but all along I have thought this was
the main objection to change - that it may cause some people's listings to
be in error.
|
Sellers are bound to minifig inventories as long as they don't add a more
specify comment.
Most sellers of vintage minifigs don't add comments so it can be assumed
that they have the hollow studded head. OTOH which buyer would complain when
getting a solid stud head, knowing that it would be more original
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
|
| | | | I would be inclined to agree with you on your first point, except for the fact
that the "b" entry for the head *is* a determined version, expressly stating
"Stud Hollow".
[p=3626bp01]
So it's not a question of sellers adding more specifics to their listings.
The specificity is built into the Item Name.
|
It is a question of adding more specifics to the name in the *minifig* listing,
as the minifig names do not specify the head stud type.
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=therobo&itemID=64925049
|
But if sellers are not bound by the variant in the inventory, then why would
it be an issue at all to change the head? I realise a lot of people never really
look at inventories closely when selling, but all along I have thought this was
the main objection to change - that it may cause some people's listings to
be in error.
|
Sellers are bound to minifig inventories as long as they don't add a more
specify comment.
Most sellers of vintage minifigs don't add comments so it can be assumed
that they have the hollow studded head. OTOH which buyer would complain when
getting a solid stud head, knowing that it would be more original
|
There must be some country song out there talking about how being wrong can end
up being right...
I don't think we can assume that listings with no comments are all the "b"
variant. Technically they should be, but consider the sources sellers are working
with. Sure, there are people that piece together figs from bins of pieces, but
in many (maybe most) situations, people listing the old figs are dealing with
genuine vintage Lego. And when it comes to sets, almost no one mentions the solid
stud head, leading me to believe they are simply selling what they found mixed
in with their original sets.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
|
| | | | I would be inclined to agree with you on your first point, except for the fact
that the "b" entry for the head *is* a determined version, expressly stating
"Stud Hollow".
[p=3626bp01]
So it's not a question of sellers adding more specifics to their listings.
The specificity is built into the Item Name.
|
It is a question of adding more specifics to the name in the *minifig* listing,
as the minifig names do not specify the head stud type.
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=therobo&itemID=64925049
|
But if sellers are not bound by the variant in the inventory, then why would
it be an issue at all to change the head? I realise a lot of people never really
look at inventories closely when selling, but all along I have thought this was
the main objection to change - that it may cause some people's listings to
be in error.
|
Sellers are bound to minifig inventories as long as they don't add a more
specify comment.
Most sellers of vintage minifigs don't add comments so it can be assumed
that they have the hollow studded head. OTOH which buyer would complain when
getting a solid stud head, knowing that it would be more original
|
There must be some country song out there talking about how being wrong can end
up being right...
I don't think we can assume that listings with no comments are all the "b"
variant.
|
We *have* to rely on it. BrickLinkers are honest
| | Technically they should be, but consider the sources sellers are working
with.
Sure, there are people that piece together figs from bins of pieces, but
in many (maybe most) situations, people listing the old figs are dealing with
genuine vintage Lego.
|
Do sellers care about vintage or do they care more about $$$
| | And when it comes to sets, almost no one mentions the solid
stud head, leading me to believe they are simply selling what they found mixed
in with their original sets.
|
Unbelievable
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Proprietor | | Posted: | Mar 4, 2015 22:55 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
|
| | | | I would be inclined to agree with you on your first point, except for the fact
that the "b" entry for the head *is* a determined version, expressly stating
"Stud Hollow".
[p=3626bp01]
So it's not a question of sellers adding more specifics to their listings.
The specificity is built into the Item Name.
|
It is a question of adding more specifics to the name in the *minifig* listing,
as the minifig names do not specify the head stud type.
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=therobo&itemID=64925049
|
But if sellers are not bound by the variant in the inventory, then why would
it be an issue at all to change the head? I realise a lot of people never really
look at inventories closely when selling, but all along I have thought this was
the main objection to change - that it may cause some people's listings to
be in error.
|
Sellers are bound to minifig inventories as long as they don't add a more
specify comment.
Most sellers of vintage minifigs don't add comments so it can be assumed
that they have the hollow studded head. OTOH which buyer would complain when
getting a solid stud head, knowing that it would be more original
|
But that's the problem; they don't know it because the BL inventory states
otherwise. And there have been threads here about buyers complaining about getting
the "wrong" head, ie the one with a solid stud. In my early days I sold a bunch
of solid stud heads because I thought they weren't correct for any figures,
per the BL inventory. Doh!
I appreciated the opinions expressed in this thread but the issue is very simple.
Classic minifigs that were sold before a certain date (and not thereafter)
NEVER had "b" heads so their inventories are wrong. Those figures never came
in a set with a "b" head and therefore the policy of yore preferring the "b"
head just because one exists is not really justifiable and has lead to a lot
of confusion. And now with "c" heads it makes even less sense. We're talking
about a finite number of minifigs. Let's fix them.
There's really no gray here; wrong is wrong, even when it's been that
way for a long time.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | crepundi | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2015 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| First of all I'd really like to thank all those who made bricklink and the
BL catalog what it is. I understand that it can't be easy to create and update
such a huge database and always be totally accurate.
The most difficult task here is to a) catalogue minifigs and b) catalogue sets.
The minifig-parts are not listed as parts of a set, but of a figure, and the
figure is listed in the set. That makes it so complicated.
It's true that if you list a figure with alternate heads or helmets and then
add them to different sets you can't be sure if all variations really occured
in all the sets.
But I see another main error here. Take the hollow stud standard grin: It says
"year released 1978 - 2013". That is just not true. As I pointed out before I
don't know when the studs changed from solid to hollow, but it was definately
later. And the solid stud standard grin was not released in 1991 but much earlier.
I am sure there is a way to find that out.
FIRST these entries have to be corrected.
Then you take all minifigs that have been released before the change and list
them with "solid stud".
Those figures that didn't appear afterwards won't get an alternate part
entry (just think of all the stickered torso figures...).
And those who occured before AND after the change will be listed with both parts.
It may still not be accurate, but it would be much closer to the original sets.
I know this would be a lot of work and couldn't be implemented easily. If
the entries will stay the way they are now - well, I'll learn to live with
it. But I wouldn't feel good if I didn't at least make this suggestion.
Gisela.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Mar 24, 2015 21:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig cas121 | | Viewed: | 111 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Faelynn writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Yellow {3626bp01 Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Stud Hollow to 3626ap01 Minifig, Head Standard Grin Pattern - Stud Solid}
Comments from Submitter:
cas121 in set 6077 head is solid stud- not hollow
change 3626bp01 to 3626ap01-all the minifigs have solid stud in this set
|
This issue has been tabled for the time being. It has been added to a list of
other important issues which we hope to address in the coming months.
As such, this particular change request will be rejected, in accordance with
the site's inventory policy. Thank you for your patience.
Russell
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, California
Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen
Belgium, Flemish Brabant
