|
 |
| | | Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2015 13:57 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | elias3 | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2015 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
There was an unwritten exception for this?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2015 16:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
There was an unwritten exception for this?
|
How can we create a reliable, consistent catalog if we use unwritten exceptions?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2015 00:04 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
There was an unwritten exception for this?
|
From Apr 6, 2012 we have these examples:
...and there are 4 more, all small sets. But then we have hundreds of them changed
over to sprues by Admin Dan on Feb 24, 2007.
I'm not 100% for following Dan's example in every situation (everybody
ends up out on a limb at one point or another), but in this case it became a
well-established policy and it points in the same general direction that inventory
policy is already headed, i.e. to represent the original (new) condition of sets
more closely.
I don't remember anything being said in 2012 about an unwritten exception.
Obviously the state of the 6 small inventories was intentional, so we can't
claim this was just an oversight. But I don't see a reason for the exception.
Can anybody explain why these sets are different than all the rest?
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | elias3 | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2015 05:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
There was an unwritten exception for this?
|
From Apr 6, 2012 we have these examples:
...and there are 4 more, all small sets. But then we have hundreds of them changed
over to sprues by Admin Dan on Feb 24, 2007.
I'm not 100% for following Dan's example in every situation (everybody
ends up out on a limb at one point or another), but in this case it became a
well-established policy and it points in the same general direction that inventory
policy is already headed, i.e. to represent the original (new) condition of sets
more closely.
I don't remember anything being said in 2012 about an unwritten exception.
Obviously the state of the 6 small inventories was intentional, so we can't
claim this was just an oversight. But I don't see a reason for the exception.
Can anybody explain why these sets are different than all the rest?
Russell
|
Hi
yes I know and I also try to change the inv. etc...
but maybe ask the IA's from that time??
same here:
Stefaan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2015 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
There was an unwritten exception for this?
|
From Apr 6, 2012 we have these examples:
...and there are 4 more, all small sets. But then we have hundreds of them changed
over to sprues by Admin Dan on Feb 24, 2007.
I'm not 100% for following Dan's example in every situation (everybody
ends up out on a limb at one point or another), but in this case it became a
well-established policy and it points in the same general direction that inventory
policy is already headed, i.e. to represent the original (new) condition of sets
more closely.
I don't remember anything being said in 2012 about an unwritten exception.
Obviously the state of the 6 small inventories was intentional, so we can't
claim this was just an oversight. But I don't see a reason for the exception.
Can anybody explain why these sets are different than all the rest?
Russell
|
The 'on sprue' was usefull because of part out's of new sets, if
3 where regular and 1 was extra, it would cause a mess for sellers on partouts,
for used sets it was less an issue if one flower was missing (even if it was
regular), as most buyers would most likely not make an issue out of it.
For the CMF's (and possibly other small sets) it's a bit more of a problem,
as there are high detailed pictures showing 3 flowers, the chances for partouts
where/are smaller, as either the baggie would be sold 'complete', either
the fig would be sold as a complete fig, leaving almost no other parts in most
cases (except some small accessoires) and easier to have control (compared to
large sets) on a partout. I don't remember the exact reason why the smaller
sets had inventories like that, but it was an unwritten and deliberate 'exception'
on the CMF's in the first place, it was discussed back then when other people
tried to file inventory changes, I'm not sure it was the right course of
action, as indeed it removed the consistancy on these flowers, BUT the reasoning
was at the same time as the reasoning for the 'knives' on sprue, as in
most cases only one was used and the second was extra...
A bit complicated, and an eternal issue when selling 'new' compared
to selling 'used', but the priority was given to 'used' (in the
long run) with the intend to not force sellers of 'used' sets to have
to add 'spares' that are not part of the actual build and therefor are
not required to consider a set 'complete' (reason why extra knives and
brickseperators got moved to 'extra', and why on small CMF sets the 1
flower was put as an extra).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2015 19:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
There was an unwritten exception for this?
|
From Apr 6, 2012 we have these examples:
...and there are 4 more, all small sets. But then we have hundreds of them changed
over to sprues by Admin Dan on Feb 24, 2007.
I'm not 100% for following Dan's example in every situation (everybody
ends up out on a limb at one point or another), but in this case it became a
well-established policy and it points in the same general direction that inventory
policy is already headed, i.e. to represent the original (new) condition of sets
more closely.
I don't remember anything being said in 2012 about an unwritten exception.
Obviously the state of the 6 small inventories was intentional, so we can't
claim this was just an oversight. But I don't see a reason for the exception.
Can anybody explain why these sets are different than all the rest?
Russell
|
The 'on sprue' was usefull because of part out's of new sets, if
3 where regular and 1 was extra, it would cause a mess for sellers on partouts,
for used sets it was less an issue if one flower was missing (even if it was
regular), as most buyers would most likely not make an issue out of it.
For the CMF's (and possibly other small sets) it's a bit more of a problem,
as there are high detailed pictures showing 3 flowers, the chances for partouts
where/are smaller, as either the baggie would be sold 'complete', either
the fig would be sold as a complete fig, leaving almost no other parts in most
cases (except some small accessoires) and easier to have control (compared to
large sets) on a partout. I don't remember the exact reason why the smaller
sets had inventories like that, but it was an unwritten and deliberate 'exception'
on the CMF's in the first place, it was discussed back then when other people
tried to file inventory changes, I'm not sure it was the right course of
action, as indeed it removed the consistancy on these flowers, BUT the reasoning
was at the same time as the reasoning for the 'knives' on sprue, as in
most cases only one was used and the second was extra...
A bit complicated, and an eternal issue when selling 'new' compared
to selling 'used', but the priority was given to 'used' (in the
long run) with the intend to not force sellers of 'used' sets to have
to add 'spares' that are not part of the actual build and therefor are
not required to consider a set 'complete' (reason why extra knives and
brickseperators got moved to 'extra', and why on small CMF sets the 1
flower was put as an extra).
|
We have decided in this case to restore the original policy and only allow the
sprue to be listed. This does create a slight problem with what some perceive
to be "extras", but we are planning to tweak the listing rules to accommodate
this as well as other parts with sprues, such as knives and 1 x 1 round plates.
Please note that we would rather not make changes to other items with sprues
until the adjustments in writing have been finalized. We will notify everyone
at that point and publish a list of parts that will need to be changed. Thanks
for your patience.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2015 20:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
There was an unwritten exception for this?
|
From Apr 6, 2012 we have these examples:
...and there are 4 more, all small sets. But then we have hundreds of them changed
over to sprues by Admin Dan on Feb 24, 2007.
I'm not 100% for following Dan's example in every situation (everybody
ends up out on a limb at one point or another), but in this case it became a
well-established policy and it points in the same general direction that inventory
policy is already headed, i.e. to represent the original (new) condition of sets
more closely.
I don't remember anything being said in 2012 about an unwritten exception.
Obviously the state of the 6 small inventories was intentional, so we can't
claim this was just an oversight. But I don't see a reason for the exception.
Can anybody explain why these sets are different than all the rest?
Russell
|
The 'on sprue' was usefull because of part out's of new sets, if
3 where regular and 1 was extra, it would cause a mess for sellers on partouts,
for used sets it was less an issue if one flower was missing (even if it was
regular), as most buyers would most likely not make an issue out of it.
For the CMF's (and possibly other small sets) it's a bit more of a problem,
as there are high detailed pictures showing 3 flowers, the chances for partouts
where/are smaller, as either the baggie would be sold 'complete', either
the fig would be sold as a complete fig, leaving almost no other parts in most
cases (except some small accessoires) and easier to have control (compared to
large sets) on a partout. I don't remember the exact reason why the smaller
sets had inventories like that, but it was an unwritten and deliberate 'exception'
on the CMF's in the first place, it was discussed back then when other people
tried to file inventory changes, I'm not sure it was the right course of
action, as indeed it removed the consistancy on these flowers, BUT the reasoning
was at the same time as the reasoning for the 'knives' on sprue, as in
most cases only one was used and the second was extra...
A bit complicated, and an eternal issue when selling 'new' compared
to selling 'used', but the priority was given to 'used' (in the
long run) with the intend to not force sellers of 'used' sets to have
to add 'spares' that are not part of the actual build and therefor are
not required to consider a set 'complete' (reason why extra knives and
brickseperators got moved to 'extra', and why on small CMF sets the 1
flower was put as an extra).
|
We have decided in this case to restore the original policy and only allow the
sprue to be listed. This does create a slight problem with what some perceive
to be "extras", but we are planning to tweak the listing rules to accommodate
this as well as other parts with sprues, such as knives and 1 x 1 round plates.
|
How will that affect the listing for sale policy regarding Used/Complete sets?
| |
Please note that we would rather not make changes to other items with sprues
until the adjustments in writing have been finalized. We will notify everyone
at that point and publish a list of parts that will need to be changed. Thanks
for your patience.
Russell
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2015 20:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, therobo writes:
| | | | We have decided in this case to restore the original policy and only allow the
sprue to be listed. This does create a slight problem with what some perceive
to be "extras", but we are planning to tweak the listing rules to accommodate
this as well as other parts with sprues, such as knives and 1 x 1 round plates.
|
How will that affect the listing for sale policy regarding Used/Complete sets?
|
It won't have much effect - the language just needs to be clearer. The policy
will continue to require only those pieces necessary to build the set.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | maggiec | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2015 20:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set col07-11 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, RobErNat writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, viejos writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, elias3 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3742 Yellow Plant Flower Small (Extra)
* Change {3 to 1} Part Yellow {3742 Plant Flower Small to 3742c01 Plant Flower Small, 4 on Sprue}
Comments from Submitter:
Standard is to have all of flowers in regular inventory.
|
There was an unwritten exception for this?
|
From Apr 6, 2012 we have these examples:
...and there are 4 more, all small sets. But then we have hundreds of them changed
over to sprues by Admin Dan on Feb 24, 2007.
I'm not 100% for following Dan's example in every situation (everybody
ends up out on a limb at one point or another), but in this case it became a
well-established policy and it points in the same general direction that inventory
policy is already headed, i.e. to represent the original (new) condition of sets
more closely.
I don't remember anything being said in 2012 about an unwritten exception.
Obviously the state of the 6 small inventories was intentional, so we can't
claim this was just an oversight. But I don't see a reason for the exception.
Can anybody explain why these sets are different than all the rest?
Russell
|
The 'on sprue' was usefull because of part out's of new sets, if
3 where regular and 1 was extra, it would cause a mess for sellers on partouts,
for used sets it was less an issue if one flower was missing (even if it was
regular), as most buyers would most likely not make an issue out of it.
For the CMF's (and possibly other small sets) it's a bit more of a problem,
as there are high detailed pictures showing 3 flowers, the chances for partouts
where/are smaller, as either the baggie would be sold 'complete', either
the fig would be sold as a complete fig, leaving almost no other parts in most
cases (except some small accessoires) and easier to have control (compared to
large sets) on a partout. I don't remember the exact reason why the smaller
sets had inventories like that, but it was an unwritten and deliberate 'exception'
on the CMF's in the first place, it was discussed back then when other people
tried to file inventory changes, I'm not sure it was the right course of
action, as indeed it removed the consistancy on these flowers, BUT the reasoning
was at the same time as the reasoning for the 'knives' on sprue, as in
most cases only one was used and the second was extra...
A bit complicated, and an eternal issue when selling 'new' compared
to selling 'used', but the priority was given to 'used' (in the
long run) with the intend to not force sellers of 'used' sets to have
to add 'spares' that are not part of the actual build and therefor are
not required to consider a set 'complete' (reason why extra knives and
brickseperators got moved to 'extra', and why on small CMF sets the 1
flower was put as an extra).
|
We have decided in this case to restore the original policy and only allow the
sprue to be listed. This does create a slight problem with what some perceive
to be "extras", but we are planning to tweak the listing rules to accommodate
this as well as other parts with sprues, such as knives and 1 x 1 round plates.
Please note that we would rather not make changes to other items with sprues
until the adjustments in writing have been finalized. We will notify everyone
at that point and publish a list of parts that will need to be changed. Thanks
for your patience.
Russell
|
I am *so* glad you have decided to do this. Who wants to buy a set as New and
Complete when one of the flowers is missing? (Or one of the keys in an original
New HP set, as I recall the discussion long ago before the definition somehow
morphed.)
Maggie
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Ohio
Belgium, Oost-Vlaanderen
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
Germany, Berlin
