| Discussion Forum: Thread 220528 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | Brick.Door  | | Posted: | May 16, 2017 11:31 | | Subject: | Add variant field | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I don't know if changes to the Bricklink database are even possible, but
I think this would really benefit Bricklink and their vision for the stud.io.
Part variants was one of the problems with sourcing parts for the MOC shop, and
it will be again for stud.io. Users who create a model and want to order the
pieces don't have any efficient way to look for different suitable variants
of a part. It can make a big difference for price and availability.
I suggest that a new "variant" field be added for catalog parts, wanted lists
and store inventory. This would be an attribute similar to the color. It could
be left n/a if the variation hasn't been identified or isn't important.
Or it could be selected a, b, c etc. to specify a particular one.
Unlike the color, variant "a" would have a different meaning for each part. This
would be captured in the part description and pictures.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | VorpalRyu | | Posted: | May 16, 2017 14:53 | | Subject: | Re: Add variant field | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | I don't know if changes to the Bricklink database are even possible, but
I think this would really benefit Bricklink and their vision for the stud.io.
Part variants was one of the problems with sourcing parts for the MOC shop, and
it will be again for stud.io. Users who create a model and want to order the
pieces don't have any efficient way to look for different suitable variants
of a part. It can make a big difference for price and availability.
I suggest that a new "variant" field be added for catalog parts, wanted lists
and store inventory. This would be an attribute similar to the color. It could
be left n/a if the variation hasn't been identified or isn't important.
Or it could be selected a, b, c etc. to specify a particular one.
Unlike the color, variant "a" would have a different meaning for each part. This
would be captured in the part description and pictures.
|
Unfortunately, not all parts variations are equal & this change could lead to
buyers ordering a variant that will not work with the designs they are buying
for. As an example, earlier wedge plates didn't generally have stud notches
to allow the plate to be placed just anywhere on top of larger plates.
A buyer might be looking for 48183 (Wedge, Plate 3 x 4 with Stud Notches) & need
the stud notches, but find that no sellers have more than two or three in
the colour they are wanting & well above what the buyer is wanting to pay. Selecting
the variant, 4859 (Wedge, Plate 3 x 4 without Stud Notches) gives them plenty
of sellers with required amounts, well under the amount the buyer is wanting
to pay. A costly mistake for the buyer as this part will not function like the
part they were wanting.
The current system is not perfect, but having the parts as separate entries means
that information like stud notches versus no stud notches will be potentially
sighted by the buyer, information that could be critical to their parts selection.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Brick.Door | | Posted: | May 16, 2017 20:28 | | Subject: | Re: Add variant field | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| There wouldn't be any loss of functionality. With this suggestion, the buyer
could search for
- only with stud notches
- only without stud notches
- any regardless of variant
Similar to the way one can add an item to the wanted list either in a specific
color, or n/a (any color). Or adding items New/Used/Either
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | May 17, 2017 10:01 | | Subject: | Re: Add variant field | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | I don't know if changes to the Bricklink database are even possible, but
I think this would really benefit Bricklink and their vision for the stud.io.
Part variants was one of the problems with sourcing parts for the MOC shop, and
it will be again for stud.io. Users who create a model and want to order the
pieces don't have any efficient way to look for different suitable variants
of a part. It can make a big difference for price and availability.
I suggest that a new "variant" field be added for catalog parts, wanted lists
and store inventory. This would be an attribute similar to the color. It could
be left n/a if the variation hasn't been identified or isn't important.
Or it could be selected a, b, c etc. to specify a particular one.
Unlike the color, variant "a" would have a different meaning for each part. This
would be captured in the part description and pictures.
|
Hello there and thank you for the suggestion
In many ways this already exists within the system, albeit not in a true formatted
way. The Related items element on the catalogue part no page gives details of
all variants of the part so if you look at for example you will see
and shown. It isn't particularly easy to search and find
that due to the fact that the 15573 has a different part number completely. The
same applies to many other parts/variants on Bricklink. One of the problems with
all of this variant stuff is that Lego themselves do not differentiate like Bricklink.
If you order a 3794 from them today you will get a 15573 which is the most current
version of the part.
There has to be a better way of doing this and knowing whether a part has a variant
or not but I am not sure this approach would cover it.
I think it is one of those 'back to the drawing board rethinks. 
One of my technical people suggested using the base mould number as the part
number and then for each variant of that part adding a suffix of v (for variant,
and then a number, so in the case mentioned above instead of 3794 and 3794b and
15573 you would see 3794, 3794v1, and 3794v2 but with that show an alternate
part number of 15573 for 3794v2. That way you could search for 3794* and get
all the related parts, but you would also see the currently used Lego id for
the part.
That would mean quite a change to the database and I don't think the development
team are really looking at that at the moment, with all the other priorities
going on.
You have made a good point and it is definitely something that should be looked
at and considered for the future - in what form - not sure - but definitely needs
looking at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, New York
Australia, South Australia
United Kingdom, England
