|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 03:28 | | Subject: | Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 237 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| The next catalog project consists of replacing all current photos of minifigures
with photos of the same minifigures on sport bikes. You can see this on the
Catalog Roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
Okay, not really. The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
My take: I'm good with this and it has been requested before. It will reduce
catalog entries from 23 to 11 entries for straight two-color arms. It will take
some work and I'm not sure about the exact logistics, but it can be done.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
My take: This is currently against policy. Policies can be changed, though.
My question would be this: is it necessary? Does anyone feel a burning need
to sell these parts? Have your buyers been requesting them? How many support
this and how strongly?
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
My take: currently against policy, a policy which is not adhered to considering
that at least one of these is already in the catalog. I see little harm in it,
but again: how many want this and how badly?
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
My take: I would like to see a detailed explanation of the exact issue to understand
it better. I believe one was posted somewhere, but it would be great if it could
be posted one last time in this thread so that we all have an idea of what this
would entail.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | blockbuster | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 04:01 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hello,
Just a thought make it simple keep the answers to yes or no, allow the post to
run for a set time and review the results.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The next catalog project consists of replacing all current photos of minifigures
with photos of the same minifigures on sport bikes. You can see this on the
Catalog Roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
Okay, not really. The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms. YES
My take: I'm good with this and it has been requested before. It will reduce
catalog entries from 23 to 11 entries for straight two-color arms. It will take
some work and I'm not sure about the exact logistics, but it can be done.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs. NO
My take: This is currently against policy. Policies can be changed, though.
My question would be this: is it necessary? Does anyone feel a burning need
to sell these parts? Have your buyers been requesting them? How many support
this and how strongly?
Adding individual Technic figure parts. NO
My take: currently against policy, a policy which is not adhered to considering
that at least one of these is already in the catalog. I see little harm in it,
but again: how many want this and how badly?
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories. YES
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods. YES
My take: I would like to see a detailed explanation of the exact issue to understand
it better. I believe one was posted somewhere, but it would be great if it could
be posted one last time in this thread so that we all have an idea of what this
would entail.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs. YES
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 04:14 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
snip
| |
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
My take: I'm good with this and it has been requested before. It will reduce
catalog entries from 23 to 11 entries for straight two-color arms. It will take
some work and I'm not sure about the exact logistics, but it can be done.
|
Thumbs up
| |
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
My take: This is currently against policy. Policies can be changed, though.
My question would be this: is it necessary? Does anyone feel a burning need
to sell these parts? Have your buyers been requesting them? How many support
this and how strongly?
|
If you are splitting the leg assemblies as below, are you not going to need/want
this for inventories of those decorated parts or does the policy also extend
to the inventories of decorated hips and legs? Consistency would be a good thing;
it is of no use that only certain leg assemblies are inventoried because it is
easy to do, and others not because it might present some difficulty. Obviously
adding parts and parts categories might not be the same thing as doing the inventories
thereof, but I would think that you are not about to embark on a project with
only one objective in mind. This is maybe not a burning issue, but certainly
worth considering. If the view is that it is not critical, then you should maybe
consider this as a sub-project to be worked on at a later date.
snip
| |
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
|
No dissent here, should have been done already when these started coming out.
snip
| |
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
No dissent, mess is never good. And since we already have other parts split into
decorated/non-decorated categories, I can't see that some consistency would
be a bad thing to have.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | novabrick | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 04:42 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | ...
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
My take: I'm good with this and it has been requested before. It will reduce
catalog entries from 23 to 11 entries for straight two-color arms. It will take
some work and I'm not sure about the exact logistics, but it can be done.
|
Sounds like a good idea to me.
| | Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
My take: This is currently against policy. Policies can be changed, though.
My question would be this: is it necessary? Does anyone feel a burning need
to sell these parts? Have your buyers been requesting them? How many support
this and how strongly?
|
We have a few left overs and spare parts from some decorated legs/hips. Which
probably got lost during the play time in the past or where just broken partly
( we mostly buy unsorted used lots ) So we could sell the hand full of them.
But it's possibly not worth it..? Someone might look for spares for their
orphaned hips without getting a full replacement. I think we're talking saving
pennies here (if relatively common)
| | Adding individual Technic figure parts.
My take: currently against policy, a policy which is not adhered to considering
that at least one of these is already in the catalog. I see little harm in it,
but again: how many want this and how badly?
|
I would like it since is already part of the catalog and we have a box
full of Belville and Technic body parts. Occasionally I can fix up complete figures
to sell. But kids seem to like to tare them apart and some got broken....
tl;dr
Yes, I want this.
| | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
|
Everything that makes it easier to find is a good idea in my book.
| | Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
My take: I would like to see a detailed explanation of the exact issue to understand
it better. I believe one was posted somewhere, but it would be great if it could
be posted one last time in this thread so that we all have an idea of what this
would entail.
|
No opinion, haven't really dealt much with those yet.
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
Everything that makes it easier to find is a good idea in my book.
Christian
novabriok-team
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
These are the two that I am most in favor of, as they would most impact me as
a buyer. The others I don't have a real opinion of one way or the other.
Josh
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | miskox | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 05:02 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
+1
Saso
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bricks2you | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 05:09 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
Yes
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 05:15 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
ABSTAIN. I do not sell in this sub-market, and don’t like taking arms out of
torsos.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
NO. Disassembling torso assemblies is never a good thing. I remember a wise
person ([axaday]) once said “Legs never are as good once you have take them apart.”
Adding individual Technic figure parts
YES. I do not see any harm in this. I have a technic figure complete except for
a broken shoe/foot, so selfishly  I would like this sub-project done.
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
YES. Change the titles of all dual-sided heads.
YES. Normally I would consider changing the title only for this because it would
help searching. However, since there are so many heads splitting the category
also would be beneficial for browsing the catalogue.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
ABSTAIN. I have no idea what we are talking about here. Are we talking about
the Friends Reboot?
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
YES. If anyone has an ideal way to compartmentalise their physical inventory
of minifig legs assembly, then please let me know. I have no system and consequently
picking legs assemblies is slower than picking other parts.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 06:14 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
|
Fine. I don't really care I think. But will the logistics include changing
the code of torso assemblies to indicate which kind of arms they have without
checking the inventory?
| | Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
|
My opinion is that this is a LOT of effort for very little result. I'm sure
there is a small market for mixing and matching decorated hips and legs. I've
done it a little, but never with impressive results. And I just had to buy hip
assemblies to do it and it was fine. I wouldn't bother here.
| | Adding individual Technic figure parts.
|
I am at a loss here. I had a large Technic figure as a child and my opinion
was that he was not divisible. Is it pretty hard? Like the decorated hips,
are there people wanting to mix these up? They come assembled and my impression
is that they aren't intended to be taken apart.
| | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
|
This is a twofer. Changing titles to reflect dual sided heads is merely regular
maintenance. Any of those known should be fixed. However, I see little point
in putting single and dual sided heads in different categories. The only application
that would interest me would be making it obvious where there was a dual sided
head needing a new pic because it looks like a single.
| | Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
|
I have no idea what this is about.
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
Presumably you mean "legs assemblies" where you said "legs". To this one I say
"I guess". The precedent is having separate categories for printed and non-printed
things when there get to be quite a few. To me it means increased risk of putting
a new piece in the wrong category by accident. It might be simpler to add a
code word like "plain" to the unprinted ones. There is plenty of space in their
item names. Even as it is now, all you have to do to find the unprinted one
you are looking for is find out the color number for the legs. And you may even
know it. I don't have to look to know that an assembly with black legs is
970c10.
A related issue that would interest me academically, but which might also have
little need, would be recognizing legs assemblies with dual molded legs as a
separate piece. Not that they need to be put in an actual different category,
but a code letter in the item number (like 970c00 v 970cm00).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 09:45 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | However, I see little point
in putting single and dual sided heads in different categories.
|
If you want to use a head either without hair / helmet /hat or with a short hair
/ hat that doesn't cover up the back print, it is very useful to just see
a list of single sided heads. Of course, you can search for "-dual" to help get
rid of the dual ones.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 06:40 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
My take: This is currently against policy. Policies can be changed, though.
My question would be this: is it necessary? Does anyone feel a burning need
to sell these parts? Have your buyers been requesting them? How many support
this and how strongly?
|
A big NO. At least, legs and hips should not be allowed to be sold new. Pulling
legs off can easily damage the hips and legs are often loose when put back on.
This is much worse than pulling off arms and removing hands.
| | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
|
Splitting to single and dual is a good idea. Sometimes you want to just see single
sided prints.
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
Yes.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 07:02 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
I know this is not fourth project, but I'd like to ask it anyway:
11. Create Complete Series Entries for Collectible Minifigures - A project to
create catalog entries to enable the sale of full sets of each series
of collectible minifigures. This is a minor, but controversial, project which
needs to be fully understood before moving forward.
Date first added: 10/30/2018
Suggested by: Rw107
Can this text be changed to:
11. Create Complete Series Entries for Collectible Minifigures - A project to
create catalog entries to enable the sale of full series of collectible minifigures.
This is a minor, but controversial, project which needs to be fully understood
before moving forward.
Removing "sets of". A series is not a set, so they should not be refered to as
a set. Maybe refer to them as a collection* like other series. However, I am
in favour of allowing the sale of a complete series in the same way as sets are
sold.
But there is a consistency issue. If CMF are allowed to be sold as complete numbered
series, then so should things like Friends Animals. These were sold by series,
yet the individual series have no category or even mention in the set name.
eg: this is just a Friends set.
There is no indication at all it is in from a series of collectible animals,
or which series it is in.
*Star Wars Planets - these already are (in some series) as "Buidable Galaxy"
collections.
But these were an official collection.
Mixels: for example,
Again collections (also official).
Maybe non-official numbers could be used to create corresponding collections
were LEGO did not sell them that way. For example, a BL defined "Buildable Galaxy
III" collection could exist to sell complete series of planets, even though LEGO
did not sell it.
Of course, there is a dilemma as to how to sell a collection for a seller:
List as a series/collection, or list as individual sets, or list as a superlot
of individual sets?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mockingbird | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 07:13 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
|
YES
| | Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
|
NO
| |
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
|
YES
Arms and legs can relatively easy be removed from a technic figure. I've
often found incomplete technic figures or just some parts of the arms or legs.
| |
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
|
YES
More consistent naming is a good thing. And splitting into two categories is
also a good thing to make it easier to find an individual head.
| | Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
|
NEUTRAL
Don't know exactly what this change would be
| |
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
YES
Although the suggestion of adding 'plain' in the name might also work.
But a 'decorated' category would be consistent with other categories.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 10:03 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
|
I think the legs are pretty much broken once they've come apart.
| |
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
|
Disagree. Dual-sided is not the same as printed front and back. Dual-sided means
there are two faces to choose from. Printed front and back means there are also
details printed on the back. To call one of these Dual is inaccurate. It is not
meant to be put on the minifig backwards.
I think Dual-sides should be left alone and any head with back printing get a
mention of it is the Name if possible. Most images already show this.
| |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
|
This would help with the difference between
which has Tan printed shoes on Dark Blue plastic (despite it's
current description) and
[p=92253c00pb05] which is molded with Dark Blue and Tan plastic.
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=175562&nID=851127
However, you are opening up a nice can of worms here! Are you going to start
differentiating between printed patterns and molded patterns all over the catalog
or just here?? I do not envy you this task.
| |
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
Sure it is convenient! (But also easily achieved with a -pattern search??) There
should be a check box on every catalog search page to 'Hide Decorated Parts.'
Ta dah! Problem solved.
Thanks!
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 14:32 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
|
Disagree. Dual-sided is not the same as printed front and back. Dual-sided means
there are two faces to choose from. Printed front and back means there are also
details printed on the back. To call one of these Dual is inaccurate. It is not
meant to be put on the minifig backwards.
I think Dual-sides should be left alone and any head with back printing get a
mention of it is the Name if possible. Most images already show this.
|
I think the head issue is going to require some additional thought. Some are
suggesting that splitting the heads into two categories will make things easier
to find. I'd suggest that is not always going to be the case. Splitting will
cut both ways. In some instances we have heads with hollow studs...and an alternate
with a blocked open stud. Also sometimes you have a pattern that is on a one-sided
head and the same pattern may be used on one side of a two-sided head.
If you have a head in hand, then, it probably will make finding the head marginally
easier.
If you do not have the head in hand, then you're compounding the complexity
of the search as you'll have to run the search against two categories. I
believe at the moment the BL search function restricts the user to one category
at a time for search. So, conceivably the search would have to be run twice:
once on "single-side heads" and again on "dual-side heads".
Then there are the non-head heads like
I'd suggest that this question of splitting heads may actually result in
splitting headaches somewhere down the road. I'm neither in the "for" or
"against" camp at this point, I'm in the "better think it through thoroughly"
camp.
| | | |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
|
However, you are opening up a nice can of worms here! Are you going to start
differentiating between printed patterns and molded patterns all over the catalog
or just here??
|
Well. Yeah. There's already some differentiation between printed and stickered
parts, and there ought to be some method of differentiating the printed and molded
parts. I'd wager that this also needs some extended consideration. Short
term, though, changing the descriptions would be moving in a positive direction.
I'd suggest that including the word "pattern" would indicate a printed piece
and the absence of "pattern" would indicate a molded piece. Or something along
those lines. At core, though, I think it's a similar issue as the stickered
vs. printed decorated parts.
| | | | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
Sure it is convenient! (But also easily achieved with a -pattern search??)
|
I don't know about "easily". Possibly "mostly". Only if the word "pattern"
is consistently used throughout the category in reference to those legs with
printing. And this raises the same issue as the mini doll legs being molded or
patterned...some minifig legs are dual-color molded and not otherwise decorated.
I don't know offhand if there are also dual color molded leg assemblies with
printing. Wonder Woman maybe?
| | There should be a check box on every catalog search page to 'Hide Decorated Parts.'
Ta dah! Problem solved.
|
I imagine Jen is attempting some humor here, but from a practical standpoint
the database isn't structured such that it would be feasible to implement
in this fashion.
Whatever solutions arise, I believe it would be preferable to have these solutions
be more immediate and less convoluted...meaning that a newbie coming in here
could assess the situation without requiring deep intimate knowledge about all
the nuances of how a piece may be decorated to find it. If we need to explain
that one needs to search two sections of minifig heads or deal with three decoration
variables or whatever other complexities may be involved, then it's not a
great system. Some of the proposed changes I think are weighted to the hard-core
know-it-alls and less to the noobs.
The true solution undoubtedly lies in a new, built-from-scratch, relational underlying
database and part-specific search forms. I don't see those happening any
time soon.
So while I see pluses and minuses to the proposed changes, and given the current
state of the database, I'm probably leaning towards not splitting decorated
categories and creating a uniform code of description for the decorated parts.
Then one is not having to search through multiple decorated head or other categories.
As far as splitting non-decorated leg assemblies from decorated ones, sure. There's
precedent for that with many other parts.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 11:21 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| |
| | | | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
Sure it is convenient! (But also easily achieved with a -pattern search??)
|
I don't know about "easily". Possibly "mostly". Only if the word "pattern"
is consistently used throughout the category in reference to those legs with
printing.
|
Yes, it very much is. The word pattern is used extensively for any part that
is not a solid color. Most everything with 'pb' in the number is going
to have that keyword.
| | And this raises the same issue as the mini doll legs being molded or
patterned...some minifig legs are dual-color molded and not otherwise decorated.
I don't know offhand if there are also dual color molded leg assemblies with
printing. Wonder Woman maybe?
|
Right now molded and patterned are the same thing. There are lots and lots of
standard minifig legs with two color plastics and printing. Some are in here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=legs+boots+pattern&itemBrand=1000&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W
| |
| | There should be a check box on every catalog search page to 'Hide Decorated Parts.'
Ta dah! Problem solved.
|
I imagine Jen is attempting some humor here, but from a practical standpoint
the database isn't structured such that it would be feasible to implement
in this fashion.
|
I am not being funny. I am being frustrated and pointing out how simple fixes
could make big things easier. A new data base isn't needed. Decorated parts
should have the word Pattern in their name. It would be wonderful if there could
be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker. However, that actually would require
data and some real coding.
Thanks for your comments!
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | I am not being funny. I am being frustrated and pointing out how simple fixes
could make big things easier. A new data base isn't needed. Decorated parts
should have the word Pattern in their name. It would be wonderful if there could
be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker. However, that actually would require
data and some real coding.
|
Ok, the brain is moving a bit slow today.
One checkbox for Hide Decorated (anything with the word Pattern)
One checkbox for Hide Sticker (anything with the word Sticker)
I am not a coder, but I can't believe this is not possible with a very easy
script.
Jen
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
Sure it is convenient! (But also easily achieved with a -pattern search??)
|
I don't know about "easily". Possibly "mostly". Only if the word "pattern"
is consistently used throughout the category in reference to those legs with
printing.
|
Yes, it very much is. The word pattern is used extensively for any part that
is not a solid color. Most everything with 'pb' in the number is going
to have that keyword.
|
You reiterate my point. Most everything.
Using 'pb' and other Bricklinky language is great for the hardcore know-it-alls.
'pb' is completely meaningless to a newbie coming on board. Not many
non-dyed-in-the-wool visitors are going to understand pb or bpb or pbp or c01
or any of these other arbitrary and inconsistent labelling affectations. Nor
are they going to understand "-pattern" or other non-obvious search lingo. There's
cognitive dissonance in searching for something you don't want to
find.
I recognize that. I was responding to a comment elsewhere in the thread about
molded and patterned being "not the same thing."
| | | | | | There should be a check box on every catalog search page to 'Hide Decorated Parts.'
Ta dah! Problem solved.
|
I imagine Jen is attempting some humor here, but from a practical standpoint
the database isn't structured such that it would be feasible to implement
in this fashion.
|
I am not being funny. I am being frustrated and pointing out how simple fixes
could make big things easier.
|
Well, they're not coming. This is why Don built the goatleg, and why when
that disappeared I put up the minifigureouter. So there are some resources out
there which will help to the extent that we outsiders can tag the database.
| | A new data base isn't needed.
|
It is if you want to have the functionality you described. The current database
won't support what you're asking for. I could get into specifics, but
I doubt you're going to grasp the difference between an ENUM and a SET field
unless you're a person who understands databases. It's not necessarily
the data that's a problem, it's the way the data is stored internally
and thus the ability to access the data.
| | Decorated parts should have the word Pattern in their name.
|
If this is the accepted paradigm for distinguishing a decorated part, then yes.
And currently most, if not all do.
| | It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.
|
Now, from a database perspective, this is where it starts to get complicated.
You need to first distinguish between Decorated and Not Decorated. That would
be one field. Then distinguish the type of decoration: sticker, printed, molded...that
would be a second field.
| | However, that actually would require data and some real coding.
|
Yes. That's why I say a new database is needed. The current structure is
pretty long in the tooth.
At the moment problems that would be more elegantly solved by revising the database
are being kludged by attempting to incorporate all the various descriptive attributes
into the item Description/Name. While that may be successful to a degree, it
limits or eliminates the possibilities of providing checkboxes and whatnot to
refine a search.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sorry if you have taken my statements in a different context then I meant them.
I am simply adding my thoughts and opinions to the discussion, not solving every
problem on BrickLink.
Jen
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:18 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Sorry if you have taken my statements in a different context then I meant them.
I am simply adding my thoughts and opinions to the discussion, not solving every
problem on BrickLink.
|
The "ta da problem solved" I read as a bit tongue-in-cheek. The response to my
comment, I can't tell if it was heated or resigned or something else.
You're unique here. Not everybody has contributed tens of thousands of morsels
of information. You have. So you have a very highly attuned sense of the product
that others simply will never have. Mostly I'm advocating for the casual
visitor, so that person, when accessing the info, is not confused or overwhelmed.
I think we're all good, just having a conversation.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | You're unique here. Not everybody has contributed tens of thousands of morsels
of information. You have. So you have a very highly attuned sense of the product
that others simply will never have.
|
Indeed. Also Jen has seen BrickLink from the inside, as I'm sure you're
aware.
I get the point you're making about the database being rebuilt from the ground
up with knowledge we have gained from the current database and knowledge we now
have of the variety of LEGO products in existence. That ain't likely to
happen, though.
Jen is saying we could avoid crazy, huge solutions with some coding. Again,
ain't likely to happen (although small improvements have definitely been
introduced here and there).
So we make do with what we have.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | […]
| | It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.
|
Now, from a database perspective, this is where it starts to get complicated.
You need to first distinguish between Decorated and Not Decorated. That would
be one field. Then distinguish the type of decoration: sticker, printed, molded...that
would be a second field.
|
Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)
| | | | However, that actually would require data and some real coding.
|
Yes. That's why I say a new database is needed. The current structure is
pretty long in the tooth.
At the moment problems that would be more elegantly solved by revising the database
are being kludged by attempting to incorporate all the various descriptive attributes
into the item Description/Name. While that may be successful to a degree, it
limits or eliminates the possibilities of providing checkboxes and whatnot to
refine a search.
|
Like alternate numbers which, unless it has changed or I misremember, are poorly
handled with a string field (thus limiting their number and complicating searches).
Anyway, all that could have been rendered painless if not at the design stage,
at least in a redesign, by abstracting and factoring the database access.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)
|
Maybe. Depends on the results you want to get. It might work in a flat sense
if you limit a part to having only one of those attributes. As an ENUM field,
it would not allow for a printed + stickered + molded part. As a SET field it
would allow for a plain, printed, stickered, molded part (which wouldn't
make sense).
It's a big complicated proposition which would require a big complicated
solution to be highly effective.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 15:40 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | | | Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)
|
Maybe. Depends on the results you want to get. It might work in a flat sense
if you limit a part to having only one of those attributes. As an ENUM field,
it would not allow for a printed + stickered + molded part. As a SET field it
would allow for a plain, printed, stickered, molded part (which wouldn't
make sense).
It's a big complicated proposition which would require a big complicated
solution to be highly effective.
|
I prefer one nullable field to twin-fields (boolean field + non-nullable field)
but I’m no DB expert, so efficiency rules (speed-wise and size-wise, but also
readability, extensibility, “error-prone-ness”…) that apply to programs may not
apply to DBs.
Anyway that’s an argument which is only valid if you really insist on doing everything
(or a maximum) on the DB side, and it’s feeble because there’s always something
to be done outside the DB, like verifying what comes in and out of the DB, like
checking for non-sensical values, which should be done even if the DB already
does it.
Well, all that is moot: we’re not in a position to do anything or to propose
anything 
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 10:11 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The next catalog project consists of replacing all current photos of minifigures
with photos of the same minifigures on sport bikes. You can see this on the
Catalog Roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
Okay, not really. The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
My take: I'm good with this and it has been requested before. It will reduce
catalog entries from 23 to 11 entries for straight two-color arms. It will take
some work and I'm not sure about the exact logistics, but it can be done.
|
I always thought these arms should be classified by the color of the part of
the arm that attached to the minifigure, instead of classified by the color coming
'out' of the 'sleeve'. A big yes from me on this one.
| | Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
My take: This is currently against policy. Policies can be changed, though.
My question would be this: is it necessary? Does anyone feel a burning need
to sell these parts? Have your buyers been requesting them? How many support
this and how strongly?
|
At first, my take on this would be a no due simply to the fact that the clips
on the hips are irreversibly damaged when the legs are taken off for the first
time (unlike arms from torsos). So hips alone would never be able to be sold
as new.
However, if the majority wants to have them and would list the parts correctly,
then I don't see why not.
In the end, I think the amount of work involved in this enormous task would outweigh
any benefit. Most people would just buy the legs assembly.
| | Adding individual Technic figure parts.
My take: currently against policy, a policy which is not adhered to considering
that at least one of these is already in the catalog. I see little harm in it,
but again: how many want this and how badly?
|
Change the policy and include these. There are not many of them, and the workload
would be rather small. Also, people have asked for these many times over the
years.
| | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
|
I like the 'dual-sided' moniker for those heads which have a completely
different full-faced expression on each side. I am not for adding the moniker
to those heads with a face on only one side and, for example, just a few lines
on the other side to represent head creases or hair.
Splitting the head category into two for dual-sided and single-sided sounds like
a good idea.
| | Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
My take: I would like to see a detailed explanation of the exact issue to understand
it better. I believe one was posted somewhere, but it would be great if it could
be posted one last time in this thread so that we all have an idea of what this
would entail.
|
This is needed. I understand the issue having looked at these in person. Some
of the minidoll legs used to be molded in one color and then had a print added
to represent a second color (like for skin tones). The newer versions of those
legs are dual-molded, so that each color is a different plastic color with no
print needed. Certain minidolls only came with one of the two types, and it would
be nice to have the correct version of the legs in the inventories for the correct
figures.
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
Yes. I find it almost impossible to find undecorated legs.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | RecycledBrick | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 11:37 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 01:35 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.
|
Okay, I've read all your comments. I had to do a little interpreting for
some of them to see what each person's take was, but that's okay - these
are nuanced issues. I included my own opinion as one of those which I counted.
Let's take a look at how things turned out.
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
This was the third most popular project. Seven for it and seven with no opinion.
I think we'll do this one.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
This was the least popular project. Not a single person wanted it. Two said
maybe, four had no opinion, and eight said no. We will be staying with current
policy and not adding individual hips and legs to the catalog.
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
Five people wanted this, one said maybe, and eight had no opinion. I think we'll
go ahead with this one, too.
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
This was a tough one. It was the second most popular project with 10 people
wanting it, one with no opinion, and three saying no. However, I read the comments
about doing it and I have changed my mind and now don't think it is the best
route to go. I know that heads are a big category, but I think it would be best
to leave them all together. So I'm going against the people and saying no
to the single side/dual side split.
As for the retitling dual-sided heads, I agree that we need to have some way
to distinguish these from heads with printing only on one side. For example:
I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
This was the most popular project. It received 12 approvals, one maybe, and
one no opinion. Yes, I know you can filter our decorated parts by doing a second
search for -pattern. Half the time I forget that when I need to find plain legs
and a new user certainly couldn't be expected to know it.
However, the same point about the heads applies here - minifigure legs assemblies
may need to be kept together. I'd like to do this one, but I will hold off
on saying so for sure in the hopes that someone will present the case for keeping
legs assemblies together.
So, of LordSkylark's proposed group of projects some will happen, others
won't (or won't happen exactly as requested), and one I'd like to
make happen but am not sure about. For now we'll begin on the first phase:
adding Technic figure parts. I've updated catalog policy to allow it, but
a question before we begin: anyone have opinions on where these should go?
I believe Large Figure Parts is an appropriate category since it could well be
where other similar parts end up in a later project. Or, we could do a new Technic,
Figure Part category, but this may be unnecessary in the future if we organize
large figure parts as requested by some members and would mean moving these parts.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 02:52 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
This was a tough one. It was the second most popular project with 10 people
wanting it, one with no opinion, and three saying no. However, I read the comments
about doing it and I have changed my mind and now don't think it is the best
route to go. I know that heads are a big category, but I think it would be best
to leave them all together. So I'm going against the people and saying no
to the single side/dual side split.
As for the retitling dual-sided heads, I agree that we need to have some way
to distinguish these from heads with printing only on one side. For example:
I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.
|
So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then? How many people are going to read catalog naming
conventions prior to do doing a search? Let us for the sake of argument use the
following terms then (these are not meant to be the naming conventions):
Single sided face print; (for heads with ONLY a face printed on one side)
Double sided face print; (for heads with ONLY a face printed on BOTH sides)
Single sided ornate print (ornate being defined as a complex pattern, i e pattern
other than a face. Printed on one side only)
Double sided ornate print (Ornate printed on BOTH sides)
Double sided face/ornate print (Face print on one side and ornate print on the
other)
This would mean the vast majority of heads would have to be renamed so as to
split between dual and single sided, new entries would have to be tested against
the naming convention every time (I for one will forget this probably 50% of
the time I add one) and you might end up with the trouble that the names would
be too long for the description field, meaning you would have to start using
abbreviations or worse still, cut out some other detail which might be important.
Unless you go with adding descriptors only to the dual sided heads, in which
case you would still need at least three naming conventions.
Changing dual sided to its own category would mean that you would not necessarily
have to rename face prints, as I think we can all agree that face printing is
the standard, and that you would only need to add a descriptor such as ornate
to those that have no face printing at all.
I get that minifig heads is a large category. A quick search reveals the following:
2 643 heads; 918 with the current descriptor "dual" (~34%). So putting 34% of
the current into a new category, searching through those that have no face printing
and renaming them, could be a fair bit less work than starting with naming conventions
and renaming all 34% of those and possibly 100% of heads, IMO.
In terms of functionality, a dual sided head is possibly used differently to
a single sided printed head. Probably better to split those then, as it might
be easier to search through 918 of a particular use, than 2 643 of a general
use. At least then you would able to completely cut out the descriptor "dual
sided" or whatever would be used and only use the pertinent details of the head
in its description, which would give you some space to rather make sure that
perhaps more pertinent details are added. So that:
* | | 3626bpb0528 Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Alien with SW Luminara Unduli Purple Lips and Large Blue Eyes / Protective Eye Mask Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
becomes: Minifig, Alien with SW Luminara Unduli Purple Lips and Large Blue Eyes
/ Protective Eye Mask Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
and
becomes: Minifig, Alien with SW Gray Eyebrows / Implant Pattern (Lobot) - Blocked
Open Stud
I personally would still prefer a split in categories.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 03:37 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then?
|
Goodness, no. I'm suggesting a brief title addition only to heads
which have printing on more than one side. Or, more precisely, LordSkylark suggested
it and I think it's something we could accomplish.
Currently we have two kinds of head titles that I'm aware of:
Minfig, Head
Minfig, Head Dual Sided
We could add a third type of title such as:
Minfig, Head Dual Printed
That's all. I don't like "Duel Printed," which is why I suggested someone
come up with something. This is LordSkylark's suggestion, so maybe he should
be suggesting something. Here was his original suggestion:
Any head with any type of printing on both sides should named “dual-sided”,
not merely heads with a face on both sides. (I am not sure why the current catalog
administrators are so stubborn about changing this.) [Maybe the head category
is now big enough to divide these into one-sided and two-sided.]
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 03:49 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then?
|
Goodness, no. I'm suggesting a brief title addition only to heads
which have printing on more than one side. Or, more precisely, LordSkylark suggested
it and I think it's something we could accomplish.
|
Ahh OK, now I understand better. Still think two categories is the way to go
though. For the meantime, maybe consider "bilateral" (defined as having two sides)
or "interchangeable" (defined as transposable). Anything you use is going to
be an awkward as my original thought that some names are going to be long still
stands.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:07 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [StormChaser] writes:
| |
Currently we have two kinds of head titles that I'm aware of:
Minfig, Head
Minfig, Head Dual Sided
We could add a third type of title such as:
Minfig, Head Dual Printed
|
Is there a need to have "Minfig, Head..." at the start of each title? What about
just "Head...". This convention is used for torso and legs assemblies.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:34 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | Is there a need to have "Minfig, Head..." at the start of each title? What about
just "Head...". This convention is used for torso and legs assemblies.
|
Just a catalog inconsistency. Some parts categories such as Foam, Bar, Slope,
and Tile have those words as the first word in every catalog entry within the
category (in fact, I believe all basic parts are this way).
Other categories have mixed titles. Container, Decorated, for example, contains
Container, Box and Container, Cupboard and Container, Racers, etc.
And still other categories do not have the category name in the title. Minifigure
torsos is one of them, but there are others. One of the reasons for this practice
for certain categories is to save space - titles are limited to a certain number
of characters.
Title inconsistencies which are not deliberate are the result of nearly 20 years
of (a) different approaches by different people, (b) moving parts from category
to category and splitting or merging categories, (c) a constant influx of new
items, and (d) no one with the time and/or willingness to standardize titles
catalog-wide.
As the catalog grows (we're about 1,800 items away from 100,000 catalog entries),
efforts to standardize any practices catalog-wide become increasingly
difficult. Yet, in spite of everything mentioned above, titles are still in
pretty good shape. Maggie and Ronald deserve our sincere admiration (and they
have mine) for keeping things as well-organized as they have for the past 8 years
that they have been doing this alone.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:12 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then?
|
Goodness, no. I'm suggesting a brief title addition only to heads
which have printing on more than one side. Or, more precisely, LordSkylark suggested
it and I think it's something we could accomplish.
Currently we have two kinds of head titles that I'm aware of:
Minfig, Head
Minfig, Head Dual Sided
We could add a third type of title such as:
Minfig, Head Dual Printed
That's all. I don't like "Duel Printed," which is why I suggested someone
come up with something. This is LordSkylark's suggestion, so maybe he should
be suggesting something. Here was his original suggestion:
Any head with any type of printing on both sides should named “dual-sided”,
not merely heads with a face on both sides. (I am not sure why the current catalog
administrators are so stubborn about changing this.) [Maybe the head category
is now big enough to divide these into one-sided and two-sided.]
|
Having read all of the opinions on this topic and having thought about this suggestion
further, I have come to the following two conclusions:
(1) I think that adding a third kind of name tag for heads would be the best
solution as you state. That way, none of the heads that are single-sided or currently
labeled as dual-sided would need to be changed. Andy could even do the work of
finding the heads he is talking about and submitting the necessary changes.
(2) All of the heads should remain in one category. It is OK to have separate
categories for non-patterned versus patterned parts, but wanting to split these
heads into multiple categories by the amount of pattern does not seem right anymore.
I liked the comment that new users will not know right away that they need to
look through more than one category when looking for heads. The comment that
there would be increased difficulty in remembering what category to submit a
new head part into was also very convincing. It would probably even create a
lot of unnecessary work for sellers that currently have large inventories. I
think some of these same comments apply to the decision on whether or not to
split the minifig legs assemblies into non-patterned versus patterned, but at
least there are numerous precedents in the catalog already for doing this.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 08:37 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
That's all. I don't like "Duel Printed," which is why I suggested someone
come up with something.
|
Wraparound print.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:11 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.
|
You just did: "dual" for dual faces and "both sides" for just printing on both
front and back side of the part. Works fine for me.
Hans-Peter
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:14 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Adding individual Technic figure parts.
[StormChaser] writes:
| | For now we'll begin on the first phase:
adding Technic figure parts. I've updated catalog policy to allow it, but
a question before we begin: anyone have opinions on where these should go?
I believe Large Figure Parts is an appropriate category since it could well be
where other similar parts end up in a later project. Or, we could do a new Technic,
Figure Part category, but this may be unnecessary in the future if we organize
large figure parts as requested by some members and would mean moving these parts.
|
This may be me throwing a square ball among the pigeons, but I'll say it
anyway...
Figure parts that are not minifig nor mini doll should go into a series of categories
like...
Figure Part, Large - Large Figure Part
Figure Part, Technic - Technic figure parts (this sub-project)
Figure Part, Classic - really old classic figure parts
Figure Part, Galidor
Figure Part, Hero Factory
Figure Part, Bionicle
etc
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:24 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [Lauren_Luke] (that's me) writes:
| | Figure parts that are not minifig nor mini doll should go into a series of categories
like...
Figure Part, Large - Large Figure Part
Figure Part, Technic - Technic figure parts (this sub-project)
Figure Part, Classic - really old classic figure parts
Figure Part, Galidor
Figure Part, Hero Factory
Figure Part, Bionicle
etc
|
... or put them all in Figure Part with the title suffixed with "(Large)", "(Technic)",
"(Bionicle)", etc. along with another category 'Figure Accessory' with
similar suffixes.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | This may be me throwing a square ball among the pigeons
|
I have never thrown objects at or among birds, so I am unable to determine if
you are doing so now.
| |
Figure parts that are not minifig nor mini doll should go into a series of categories
like...
|
This is already on the catalog roadmap. The suggestion is to group large figure
parts together by item type to make them easier to navigate. So:
Large Figure Part, Arm
Large Figure Part, Head
Large Figure Part, Leg
Large Figure Part, Mask
Large Figure Part, Torso
etc.
They would not be separated by theme. This would essentially be transitioning
to the way minifigure parts are cataloged. But that suggestion won't be
looked at for a little while yet. It would involve significant changes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 05:04 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [StormChaser] writes:
| | I have never thrown objects at or among birds, so I am unable to determine if
you are doing so now.
|
Sorry I love idioms and I sometimes like to adulterate them and make my own.
Hence my own mixed version of the "Throw the cat among the pigeons" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_the_cat_among_the_pigeons)
with "Square peg in a round hole" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_peg_in_a_round_hole)
and also "Throw a curve ball" (US idiom).
Anyway no animals were harmed during the production of these idioms, I have used
CGI throughout!
[StormChaser] writes:
| | They would not be separated by theme. This would essentially be transitioning
to the way minifigure parts are cataloged. But that suggestion won't be
looked at for a little while yet. It would involve significant changes.
|
Yep agree and understand. I figure (get it?) that if I put up the idea here
and now and let it mellow for a while it may mature and blossom in the future,
like a good wine or a smelly cheese.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
|
I will restate that this needs to be done.
Most people probably do not deal much with friends parts.
These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
The one type of legs are printed.
The other type of legs are dual-molded.
The printed legs look much worse than the dual-molded ones.
This seems more serious to me than some of the other entries with multiple variants.
Andrew
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 11:16 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| If it helps, you can change me to agreeing with Skylark now that I know what
we are talking about.
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | | |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
|
I will restate that this needs to be done.
Most people probably do not deal much with friends parts.
These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
The one type of legs are printed.
The other type of legs are dual-molded.
The printed legs look much worse than the dual-molded ones.
This seems more serious to me than some of the other entries with multiple variants.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| +1
I also think that these parts should be split.
In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | If it helps, you can change me to agreeing with Skylark now that I know what
we are talking about.
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | | |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
|
I will restate that this needs to be done.
Most people probably do not deal much with friends parts.
These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
The one type of legs are printed.
The other type of legs are dual-molded.
The printed legs look much worse than the dual-molded ones.
This seems more serious to me than some of the other entries with multiple variants.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:43 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.
|
Here's some images.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| So is there anything you want us to help with?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.
|
Okay, I've read all your comments. I had to do a little interpreting for
some of them to see what each person's take was, but that's okay - these
are nuanced issues. I included my own opinion as one of those which I counted.
Let's take a look at how things turned out.
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
This was the third most popular project. Seven for it and seven with no opinion.
I think we'll do this one.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
This was the least popular project. Not a single person wanted it. Two said
maybe, four had no opinion, and eight said no. We will be staying with current
policy and not adding individual hips and legs to the catalog.
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
Five people wanted this, one said maybe, and eight had no opinion. I think we'll
go ahead with this one, too.
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
This was a tough one. It was the second most popular project with 10 people
wanting it, one with no opinion, and three saying no. However, I read the comments
about doing it and I have changed my mind and now don't think it is the best
route to go. I know that heads are a big category, but I think it would be best
to leave them all together. So I'm going against the people and saying no
to the single side/dual side split.
As for the retitling dual-sided heads, I agree that we need to have some way
to distinguish these from heads with printing only on one side. For example:
I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
This was the most popular project. It received 12 approvals, one maybe, and
one no opinion. Yes, I know you can filter our decorated parts by doing a second
search for -pattern. Half the time I forget that when I need to find plain legs
and a new user certainly couldn't be expected to know it.
However, the same point about the heads applies here - minifigure legs assemblies
may need to be kept together. I'd like to do this one, but I will hold off
on saying so for sure in the hopes that someone will present the case for keeping
legs assemblies together.
So, of LordSkylark's proposed group of projects some will happen, others
won't (or won't happen exactly as requested), and one I'd like to
make happen but am not sure about. For now we'll begin on the first phase:
adding Technic figure parts. I've updated catalog policy to allow it, but
a question before we begin: anyone have opinions on where these should go?
I believe Large Figure Parts is an appropriate category since it could well be
where other similar parts end up in a later project. Or, we could do a new Technic,
Figure Part category, but this may be unnecessary in the future if we organize
large figure parts as requested by some members and would mean moving these parts.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 04:09 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 05:54 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
Front&Back
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 06:57 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 07:52 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 09:11 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.
Randy
|
That was what I was saying. I already suggested Front&Back for the ones with
back prints. But I would get rid of "Dual-Sided" entirely since it really sounds
like either one. Replace it with something more specific.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 09:51 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.
Randy
|
That was what I was saying. I already suggested Front&Back for the ones with
back prints. But I would get rid of "Dual-Sided" entirely since it really sounds
like either one. Replace it with something more specific.
|
What I am saying is that I disagree with your suggestion, although I do understand
the reasoning. What I am saying is that getting rid of the term "dual-sided"
or changing "dual-sided" to "dual-faced" would *not* be a good thing since the
term "dual-sided" has been in use for a long time and is already ingrained in
the collective consciousness. I just want a new third term added to those heads
that have a face on one side and something else on the other. However, I am willing
to go along with whatever the majority decides in the end.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I would use something like:
Print on one side only:
"with X pattern"
Print on both sides:
"with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
or maybe
"dual-sided with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
because that makes it possible to use a search filter.
Face print on both sides:
"dual-faced with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
Let me ask a practical question. Is this data such that you can access it and
run a global find-and-replace, or do you have to edit all these entries one at
a time?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project. I think I may have bundled too many sub-projects
together, so this knowledge will be helpful for me when planning future projects.
| | Let me ask a practical question. Is this data such that you can access it and
run a global find-and-replace, or do you have to edit all these entries one at
a time?
|
There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture. And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway. The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 16:04 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.
|
I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.
| | There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.
|
...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...
| | And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.
|
This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.
| | The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
I have that here:
http://www.v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/renameheads.html
It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.
I think these are the various types:
- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head
- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- then there's an Ultron head that doesn't have a face as far as I can
tell, and maybe a couple robot heads that are heads but are decorated with something
obtuse like a lightning bolt or zigzag or circuitry pattern. These half-dozen
or so provide a challenge to categorize or label such that they might be found
as a group. Non-standard facial attribute heads.
These are questions:
1. Do the non-head heads get moved out of the heads section? They are piece 3626*,
but they technically are NOT minifig heads.
2. Do the non-head heads get left in the heads section and get a special label
to make them discoverable as a group?
3. Both types of the dual-side printed heads are dual-side printed, so I see
no benefit to changing that language. The differentiator as I see it is the nature
of the head, and that is that some have reversible faces and the others do not.
While it will be far more labor to label the several hundred reversible-face
items than to label the hundred-plus not-reversible heads, to my mind labeling
the reversible-face items as "reversible face" or similar makes the necessary
and cognitively relevant distinction to isolate those as a group. So do the non-reversible
heads need a different label to distinguish them as a group?
Currently most of the reversible-face heads are labeled as "dual sided" and mostly
the dual-sided non-reversible face heads are not. And some reversible-face heads
are also not labeled as dual-sided. Given that, I can't fathom a way that
this project gets done without individually inspecting all 2600-plus records.
If all records must be inspected individually, then do all get edited such that
each carries one of the five type labels as suggested above?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I like that word "reversible"
In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.
|
I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.
| | There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.
|
...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...
| | And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.
|
This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.
| | The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
I have that here:
http://www.v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/renameheads.html
It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.
I think these are the various types:
- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head
- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- then there's an Ultron head that doesn't have a face as far as I can
tell, and maybe a couple robot heads that are heads but are decorated with something
obtuse like a lightning bolt or zigzag or circuitry pattern. These half-dozen
or so provide a challenge to categorize or label such that they might be found
as a group. Non-standard facial attribute heads.
These are questions:
1. Do the non-head heads get moved out of the heads section? They are piece 3626*,
but they technically are NOT minifig heads.
2. Do the non-head heads get left in the heads section and get a special label
to make them discoverable as a group?
3. Both types of the dual-side printed heads are dual-side printed, so I see
no benefit to changing that language. The differentiator as I see it is the nature
of the head, and that is that some have reversible faces and the others do not.
While it will be far more labor to label the several hundred reversible-face
items than to label the hundred-plus not-reversible heads, to my mind labeling
the reversible-face items as "reversible face" or similar makes the necessary
and cognitively relevant distinction to isolate those as a group. So do the non-reversible
heads need a different label to distinguish them as a group?
Currently most of the reversible-face heads are labeled as "dual sided" and mostly
the dual-sided non-reversible face heads are not. And some reversible-face heads
are also not labeled as dual-sided. Given that, I can't fathom a way that
this project gets done without individually inspecting all 2600-plus records.
If all records must be inspected individually, then do all get edited such that
each carries one of the five type labels as suggested above?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 04:25 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.
|
I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.
|
One person's "spinning wheels" is another's "thinking things through
thoroughly". (Love that alliteration there.)
| | | | There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.
|
...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...
|
We as volunteer admins do not have direct access to the database, and I for one
am glad that we don't. None of us have the required skills to ensure that
we wouldn't drastically screw something up.
| | | | And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.
|
This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.
|
Yes, we are limited to forms.
| | | | The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
I have that here:
http://www.v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/renameheads.html
It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.
|
You have. I know at least one or two off the top of my head that are not in that
list. For example:
| | I think these are the various types:
- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head
- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- then there's an Ultron head that doesn't have a face as far as I can
tell, and maybe a couple robot heads that are heads but are decorated with something
obtuse like a lightning bolt or zigzag or circuitry pattern. These half-dozen
or so provide a challenge to categorize or label such that they might be found
as a group. Non-standard facial attribute heads.
These are questions:
1. Do the non-head heads get moved out of the heads section? They are piece 3626*,
but they technically are NOT minifig heads.
|
No. This is unnecessary.
| | 2. Do the non-head heads get left in the heads section and get a special label
to make them discoverable as a group?
|
No. This is unnecessary.
| | 3. Both types of the dual-side printed heads are dual-side printed, so I see
no benefit to changing that language. The differentiator as I see it is the nature
of the head, and that is that some have reversible faces and the others do not.
While it will be far more labor to label the several hundred reversible-face
items than to label the hundred-plus not-reversible heads, to my mind labeling
the reversible-face items as "reversible face" or similar makes the necessary
and cognitively relevant distinction to isolate those as a group. So do the non-reversible heads need a different label to distinguish them as a group?
|
Yes, this is the simplest solution, and the one most likely to get implemented.
| | Currently most of the reversible-face heads are labeled as "dual sided" and mostly
the dual-sided non-reversible face heads are not. And some reversible-face heads
are also not labeled as dual-sided. Given that, I can't fathom a way that
this project gets done without individually inspecting all 2600-plus records.
|
Unfortunately, that will probably have to be done to make sure that every one
is correct. I see no other way around it if people want 100% accuracy on this.
| | If all records must be inspected individually, then do all get edited such that
each carries one of the five type labels as suggested above?
|
I am still against changing them all. We only need to change the new group that
is being discussed (two-sided heads that don't have two faces) or change
nothing. After all, there have not been a lot of people clamoring for this over
the years. In fact, Andy might have been the only one. In the end, there are
much more pressing catalog issues than this that need to be taken care of.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 10:21 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | One person's "spinning wheels" is another's "thinking things through
thoroughly". (Love that alliteration there.)
We as volunteer admins do not have direct access to the database, and I for one
am glad that we don't. None of us have the required skills to ensure that
we wouldn't drastically screw something up.
|
That suggests that something isn't already drastically screwed up?
From my perspective, not having that access just makes the labor more laborious.
Permissions can be set on these databases such that users have access restricted
to certain fields. That would make your administrator lives a touch better.
| | | | It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.
|
You have. I know at least one or two off the top of my head that are not in that
list. For example:
|
I was just going by pictures. Any picture of a two-sided head showing only one
side would be missed. As it was it took four hours. It would have been much longer
had I read every description. But the exercise helped codify the situation.
| | | | I think these are the various types:
- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head
- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
|
|
| | I am still against changing them all. We only need to change the new group that
is being discussed (two-sided heads that don't have two faces) or change
nothing. After all, there have not been a lot of people clamoring for this over
the years. In fact, Andy might have been the only one. In the end, there are
much more pressing catalog issues than this that need to be taken care of.
|
In the spirit of "thinking things through thoroughly" I believe at minimum you
want to label the reversible heads as such.
Both the single-face and the back-printed heads are not reversible. For those
items, if you search for and find the face, it's a done deal. Not specially
labeling the reversible heads makes one have to search through all the heads,
so there's no benefit (being a reduction in the found set) gained unless
this group gets distinguished somehow. If the reversible heads are labeled "dual-sided"
and the not-reversible heads are not labeled "dual-sided" that's an effective
tactic, but a misnomer.
Having gone through all the heads yesterday, I'm not sure there's any
benefit to culling out the backhead printed set. The only instance I can think
of is if there exists two heads with identical faces, one backheaded and one
not, and you want to distinguish those. Maybe you can think of some other reason.
In any event, I would like to understand your thinking on how labeling the backheaded
ones as such while not labeling the reversible heads (if that's what you're
proposing) improves the ability to find a particular head.
And I'd argue for labeling each head with one of the five categories if you
have to examine every record anyway. It won't hurt. And anything that allows
me to reduce the found count from 2600 down to one is a plus in my book. But
that's me with lots of years of dealing with databases.
Whatever decision you make regarding this issue, please document the naming convention
so when folks come along to add new heads there is a clear procedure and language
to follow.
So, yes. Thinking things through thoroughly. Probably not there yet, but closer.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Whatever decision you make regarding this issue, please document the naming convention
so when folks come along to add new heads there is a clear procedure and language
to follow.
|
It is not my decision to make. I am not a Catalog Admin. All I can do is offer
additional guidance to those that are. The current method has worked pretty well
so far, since the Catalog Admins make sure the naming conventions are followed
on new parts added to the catalog even if the users themselves do not know anything
about it. I don't have any reason to believe that that would change going
forward. As it is, the entire catalog is pretty amazing considering that it was
only looked after by two people for the last 9 years or so. I for one appreciate
all they have done over the years and respect them immensely for that.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 17:13 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
|
I have [m=tech011] in my childhood collection. What can I take apart safely?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 03:22 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I have [a Technic figure] in my childhood collection. What can I take apart safely?
|
I'd just leave it to the people who wanted part entries for these figure
parts. The catalog is open to these entries now and they should be submitted
as Large Figure Parts like this:
Large Figure Foot Techinc
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 23:46 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| My vote:
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 03:18 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
I apologize that this group of projects has not gone so well. I will not bundle
so many projects together in the future. Here's the status of each project
as of the moment:
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
Yes. This will happen soon.
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
Yes. This has already happened - it was just a policy change. Members
who wanted it may submit catalog entries (although they haven't yet).
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
Maybe. I need to understand if this will cause unforeseen problems. It
is the only project on the list which I am still uncertain about.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
No. This will not happen.
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
No. This will not happen. We could not reach any consensus on the best
path to take here and I'm not entirely convinced that the benefits would
justify the effort.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No. This will not happen, or at least not in the near future. I have
added a paragraph to this page explaining the issue (third paragraph down):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
At the least, though, we are officially recognizing the issue by including it
on that page. The issue with differences in production processes could
be addressed in the future when we get some sort of plan together to deal with
all the part variants which still need attention.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
I apologize that this group of projects has not gone so well.
|
I think it did go well enough. There was a list of ideas, there was discussion,
and now there is a plan on how to move forward.
| | I will not bundle so many projects together in the future.
|
Good improvement. That will make the discussion better.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 04:51 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it.
|
Grrr. Someone could have mentioned that this was already a different project
(currently number 10 on the roadmap). I just now noticed. Ah, well. We got
some good discussion in on it and now I know people definitely want it.
So all that really remains to be done from the original group is the dual-molded
arms.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 09:35 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
So all that really remains to be done from the original group is the dual-molded
arms.
|
You may want to add or create a new item, and that is separating all the items
that contain both decorated and undecorated parts in a single category into two
categories. Or, conversely, merge all decorated and undecorated items into one.
If you want to back up the thread to Jen's decorated checkbox issue, this
is one reason that implementation won't work under the current scheme.
Some categories are already split: bricks / bricks, decorated. Some categories
are not split: minifig torsos, legs, baseplates, there may be others.
It wouldn't make sense to checkbox "hide all decorated parts" on bricks,
decorated category because you'd find none. Similarly it wouldn't
make sense to checkbox "hide all decorated parts" on bricks category because
it won't find any.
The basic organization of the upper categories is inconsistent in its consideration
of location of decorated/undecorated items.
I'm not suggesting this is currently a problem, but it does pose issues when
one comes to implementing features such as Jen suggests.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 10:11 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| |
I'm not suggesting this is currently a problem, but it does pose issues when
one comes to implementing features such as Jen suggests.
|
You keep coming back to and picking apart this idea? Please consider:
1) This idea has been asked for from the original BrickLink session in Seattle
more years ago then I would like to count up.
2) It would be a convenience to many users (and especially newbies) to be able
to further constrain their search results. "I am tying to find something, but
there are too many stickered parts in the way" has been stated numerous times
in the Forum over the years.
3) I do not believe that it would be complicated, difficult to implement, or
require touching the database. Each checkbox would simply add the necessary text
string '-pattern' '-sticker' to the search parameters. I have
spoken to people more knowledgeable than me who have assured me this is a real
thing.
4) It could appear within the search bar at the top of any catalog search results
page. One checkbox to Hide Decorated parts. One checkbox to Hide Stickers. The
new page designs are already likely wide enough to accommodate this. Try it searching
for 'tile 1x6' and then 'tile 1x6 -sticker' to get a feel for
how it might function when someone is looking for a part. Then, try 'legs
hips' and 'legs hips -pattern'
5) There would be less pressure on the admins to split some categories if these
options were easily available to everyone. Splits are still needed and necessary,
but I will restate that this would simply alleviate some of the pressure to do
so.
I admit that I do not really understand where you are coming from with these
last few posts discussing my little afterthought suggestion. It is not feeling
like a discussion much from my end so I am going to say thanks now for adding
your comments and that this is the last I have to say on the matter. I look forward
to this discussion heading back toward catalog issues and not coding for the
site which BL is not currently considering.
Take care!
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 11:59 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | I admit that I do not really understand where you are coming from with these
last few posts discussing my little afterthought suggestion.
|
Search
slope, decorated -pattern
Search slope -sticker
I don't in any way mean to belittle you or your desire for additional functionality.
But I can't see how those searches accomplish anything. That's all.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| ...and because I can't leave well enough alone...
You get different search results if you type in the top-of-the-page search box
versus if you use the search page and use a just the popups or a combination
of things there...or elsewhere...
using the search box with tile 1x6 -sticker
yields different results than using the popup category tile and stick 1x6 -sticker
in the keyword box.
All the search boxes look the same, but they don't operate the same. The
search box at the top of the page gives different results compared to the search
box on the catalog search page.
All my ranting is about wanting a uniform set of results regardless of which
search mechanism is used. I know I haven't stated that as such, but that
is what I'd expect from a search mechanism. Trying to remember which box
works which way where is painful.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 15:56 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | ...and because I can't leave well enough alone...
You get different search results if you type in the top-of-the-page search box
versus if you use the search page and use a just the popups or a combination
of things there...or elsewhere...
using the search box with tile 1x6 -sticker
yields different results than using the popup category tile and stick 1x6 -sticker
in the keyword box.
All the search boxes look the same, but they don't operate the same. The
search box at the top of the page gives different results compared to the search
box on the catalog search page.
All my ranting is about wanting a uniform set of results regardless of which
search mechanism is used. I know I haven't stated that as such, but that
is what I'd expect from a search mechanism. Trying to remember which box
works which way where is painful.
|
All of your concerns are valid, but this whole thread is about things that the
Catalog Admins can accomplish on their own to solve some issues that do not require
programming or needing to access the back end. As volunteer admins, all they
can do is ask for some things to get changed, but they have no control over what
will be taken seriously and what won't.
Since I have become an Inventory Admin, I have been personally informed from
higher up that most of our concerns here are currently not in line with the concerns
of site management. Those who own the site have a different focus and a different
path. Their focus is on additions to BrickLink that hopefully add growth to the
marketplace. They are not concerned much, if at all, with fixing what is broken
or inconsistent on the current incarnation of BrickLink, since it pretty much
does what it needs to do. Occasionally, when people make enough fuss about something
(like I did about getting the wanted list fixed to allow myself and others to
correctly set things to average prices), they get it fixed...eventually. But
this is very rare these days.
Unfortunately, this is the environment we live and work in. Big changes are almost
certainly not going to happen, especially from the database end. The best thing
to do right now is move one and leave this stuff on the Catalog Roadmap as a
topic for later discussion.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 18:04 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I understand completely all the things you say. The one thing the vol admins
can control is the description. And that is why, in absence of the ability to
change anything else, comprehensive, consistent, and thorough labeling conventions
applied uniformly across the catalog will improve the search results.
The downside of that are these descriptions that run on for two hundred words,
can be redundant and otherwise clumsy and/or inelegant.
If nobody wants to be bothered implementing some of my suggestions, I’m fine
with it.
If you want to label the backhead printed items as such, even if there is no
benefit to that, I’m fine with it.
Some suggestions that have been presented, all with honorable intentions, can’t
be implemented. I get that.
So where does any of this discussion get us? Kind of seems like, ultimately,
things are just getting rearranged for the sake of rearranging them. It seems
like all that’s getting done is constantly patching holes in the tires where
it would make more sense to remove the damned nails from the driveway.
This is, at least in part, one great exercise in futility, is it not?
As I come to this conclusion, I wonder why I have bothered. I guess I thought
my experience might be helpful. But maybe it just doesn't matter.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 18:20 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I understand completely all the things you say. The one thing the vol admins
can control is the description. And that is why, in absence of the ability to
change anything else, comprehensive, consistent, and thorough labeling conventions
applied uniformly across the catalog will improve the search results.
The downside of that are these descriptions that run on for two hundred words,
can be redundant and otherwise clumsy and/or inelegant.
If nobody wants to be bothered implementing some of my suggestions, I’m fine
with it.
If you want to label the backhead printed items as such, even if there is no
benefit to that, I’m fine with it.
Some suggestions that have been presented, all with honorable intentions, can’t
be implemented. I get that.
So where does any of this discussion get us? Kind of seems like, ultimately,
things are just getting rearranged for the sake of rearranging them. It seems
like all that’s getting done is constantly patching holes in the tires where
it would make more sense to remove the damned nails from the driveway.
This is, at least in part, one great exercise in futility, is it not?
As I come to this conclusion, I wonder why I have bothered. I guess I thought
my experience might be helpful. But maybe it just doesn't matter.
|
I kind of feel the same way you do. To me, the most important part of BrickLink
is the catalog. It's not the part that directly makes money though, so I
can see why it's less important to the powers that be. Doesn't make it
any more disheartening to hear though.
Josh
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tonnic | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2018 04:57 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I believe I read in this large forumpost and another one that decorated legs
and hips will not be in the catalog.
I think this is a shame and a shortcoming in the catalog.
A lot of us buy second hand minifigures etc.
All parts can be broken, scratched, have hairline cracks and legs are quite often
nibbled on and have bitemarks.
I think it would be silly to buy the whole assembly while for a fraction of the
price you might want to buy a left or right leg or a hip.
Not only would it be cheaper but this is also a chance to NOT throw away parts
that cannot be sold in a standard way, a way that a buyer can find.
If they are for sale a seller must use unfindable methods and they will probably
remain it store for decades.
A wast of time, effort, money and plastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oklahoma
United Kingdom, England
South Africa, Western Cape
Germany, Schleswig-Holstein
Slovenia
Australia, Queensland
Netherlands, Noord-Brabant
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
)
)
