| Discussion Forum: Thread 206885 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | Teup  | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2016 18:51 | | Subject: | Create separate entry for packing dimensions | | Viewed: | 92 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| So I see that the shipping cost suggestion is getting its AI fleshed out, nice
to see it coming along!  It correctly indicates for some old orders of mine
whether they were oversized or not.
However, an issue arose with an order with just few items, amongst which this
part:
This order should fit as a letter but the algorythm is returning "oversized".
I suspect it's due to this part, and I also suspect it's taking the part's
constructional (stud) dimensions as input: In its intended form the part is indeed
to big, but when flat (diagonal), it fits. Either it's taking the stud dimensions,
or there is some hidden extra field for dimensions already, that is opaque
to the community (or I just missed it somehow) and in this case has wrong info.
In the first case, please make a separate entry for packing dimensions. In the
latter, please make this info available to the community and open to modification.
It's natural for mistakes to occur with some frequency in the database, I
think it's important to allow easy modification.
This suggestion is likely to be redundant, as you guys were probably planning
on this anyway, but since, let's face it, BL hasn't always had a history
of accurately tackling priority issues (it's going well now, though!) I'm
posting it anyway
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jun 27, 2016 05:39 | | Subject: | Re: Create separate entry for packing dimensions | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Same issue with another order, presumably caused by this part:
* | | 87421 Panel 3 x 3 x 6 Corner Wall without Bottom Indentations
Parts: Panel |
In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | So I see that the shipping cost suggestion is getting its AI fleshed out, nice
to see it coming along! It correctly indicates for some old orders of mine
whether they were oversized or not.
However, an issue arose with an order with just few items, amongst which this
part:
This order should fit as a letter but the algorythm is returning "oversized".
I suspect it's due to this part, and I also suspect it's taking the part's
constructional (stud) dimensions as input: In its intended form the part is indeed
to big, but when flat (diagonal), it fits. Either it's taking the stud dimensions,
or there is some hidden extra field for dimensions already, that is opaque
to the community (or I just missed it somehow) and in this case has wrong info.
In the first case, please make a separate entry for packing dimensions. In the
latter, please make this info available to the community and open to modification.
It's natural for mistakes to occur with some frequency in the database, I
think it's important to allow easy modification.
This suggestion is likely to be redundant, as you guys were probably planning
on this anyway, but since, let's face it, BL hasn't always had a history
of accurately tackling priority issues (it's going well now, though!) I'm
posting it anyway
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Jun 27, 2016 06:00 | | Subject: | Re: Create separate entry for packing dimensions | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | So I see that the shipping cost suggestion is getting its AI fleshed out, nice
to see it coming along! It correctly indicates for some old orders of mine
whether they were oversized or not.
However, an issue arose with an order with just few items, amongst which this
part:
This order should fit as a letter but the algorythm is returning "oversized".
I suspect it's due to this part, and I also suspect it's taking the part's
constructional (stud) dimensions as input: In its intended form the part is indeed
to big, but when flat (diagonal), it fits. Either it's taking the stud dimensions,
or there is some hidden extra field for dimensions already, that is opaque
to the community (or I just missed it somehow) and in this case has wrong info.
In the first case, please make a separate entry for packing dimensions. In the
latter, please make this info available to the community and open to modification.
It's natural for mistakes to occur with some frequency in the database, I
think it's important to allow easy modification.
This suggestion is likely to be redundant, as you guys were probably planning
on this anyway, but since, let's face it, BL hasn't always had a history
of accurately tackling priority issues (it's going well now, though!) I'm
posting it anyway
|
How would this consider the packing dimensions for 2 of these stairs?
I'm all for a better shipping tool, but in addition to a packing dimensions
field, a "packing factor" for multiples of the same part is also required.
You should know this from a previous discussion 
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=994074
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jun 27, 2016 06:24 | | Subject: | Re: Create separate entry for packing dimensions | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | So I see that the shipping cost suggestion is getting its AI fleshed out, nice
to see it coming along! It correctly indicates for some old orders of mine
whether they were oversized or not.
However, an issue arose with an order with just few items, amongst which this
part:
This order should fit as a letter but the algorythm is returning "oversized".
I suspect it's due to this part, and I also suspect it's taking the part's
constructional (stud) dimensions as input: In its intended form the part is indeed
to big, but when flat (diagonal), it fits. Either it's taking the stud dimensions,
or there is some hidden extra field for dimensions already, that is opaque
to the community (or I just missed it somehow) and in this case has wrong info.
In the first case, please make a separate entry for packing dimensions. In the
latter, please make this info available to the community and open to modification.
It's natural for mistakes to occur with some frequency in the database, I
think it's important to allow easy modification.
This suggestion is likely to be redundant, as you guys were probably planning
on this anyway, but since, let's face it, BL hasn't always had a history
of accurately tackling priority issues (it's going well now, though!) I'm
posting it anyway
|
How would this consider the packing dimensions for 2 of these stairs?
I'm all for a better shipping tool, but in addition to a packing dimensions
field, a "packing factor" for multiples of the same part is also required.
You should know this from a previous discussion
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=994074
|
Well....  Let's not overcomplicate things for now BO has a separate
field for packing dimension, just the 3 dimensions and that's it. It's
easy and works quite well, and solves the 'bugs' like these.
Currently the package size calculator is a complete black box, which means that
the community cannot contribute or verify anything. I hope BL can handle making
it its responsability alone..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netherlands, Utrecht
Germany, Berlin