|  | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup  | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 05:38 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 105 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 05:43 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Yep, my thoughts too.
From what I've seen, I thought feelings where mixed and fairly evenly spread
between doom and gloom, positivity and cautiously optimistic.
Don't know what has been posted on other sites, perhaps these were less favourable.
In General, Teup writes:
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Pippysblocks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 07:05 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 07:10 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 08:52 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
Sorry to disagree, but IMO* , there is no such thing as "the way the world is".
We all are making the world.
I once had a Belgian Buyer with a "me" page reading that he and his wife through
their 3 children all supported children in Africa. I dearly relate to that, I
support education for children in Africa as well, and my children will too, so
I wrote him  He explainedme that the reason why he subscribed each of his children
to that program is that way they will grow understanding and being aware that
not all children in the world have the same opportunities they have. There is
no doubt in my mind that these children are going to be more sensitive to others
realities and less egoccentric.
We have to make the change we want to see in the world, to quote a poet.
I love good news, they sell to me. I spread good news. They sell to the people
I'm spreading. The bad, not really. Unless it is to allert to something potentially
nefarious.
I could go on with examples of playlists on the radio and tv shows, but maybe
some other day...
*There is no such thing as IMHO either, just political correctness 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 09:04 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
Sorry to disagree, but IMO* , there is no such thing as "the way the world is".
We all are making the world.
I once had a Belgian Buyer with a "me" page reading that he and his wife through
their 3 children all supported children in Africa. I dearly relate to that, I
support education for children in Africa as well, and my children will too, so
I wrote him He explainedme that the reason why he subscribed each of his children
to that program is that way they will grow understanding and being aware that
not all children in the world have the same opportunities they have. There is
no doubt in my mind that these children are going to be more sensitive to others
realities and less egoccentric.
We have to make the change we want to see in the world, to quote a poet.
I love good news, they sell to me. I spread good news. They sell to the people
I'm spreading. The bad, not really. Unless it is to allert to something potentially
nefarious.
I could go on with examples of playlists on the radio and tv shows, but maybe
some other day...
*There is no such thing as IMHO either, just political correctness
|
Well I agree with you both. I like thinking "that's just how the world is,
but at least it wasn't my fault"
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 09:11 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
Sorry to disagree, but IMO* , there is no such thing as "the way the world is".
We all are making the world.
I once had a Belgian Buyer with a "me" page reading that he and his wife through
their 3 children all supported children in Africa. I dearly relate to that, I
support education for children in Africa as well, and my children will too, so
I wrote him He explainedme that the reason why he subscribed each of his children
to that program is that way they will grow understanding and being aware that
not all children in the world have the same opportunities they have. There is
no doubt in my mind that these children are going to be more sensitive to others
realities and less egoccentric.
We have to make the change we want to see in the world, to quote a poet.
I love good news, they sell to me. I spread good news. They sell to the people
I'm spreading. The bad, not really. Unless it is to allert to something potentially
nefarious.
I could go on with examples of playlists on the radio and tv shows, but maybe
some other day...
*There is no such thing as IMHO either, just political correctness
|
The only thing about this world what is just as it is are the laws of mathematics
and natural sciences. We cannot change what is predicted by that. But we can
change anything else.
And there is no scientific reason why there should be poor and rich, and no reason
why there should be war, why we should ruin this world, and why we should treat
other people badly. This is all up to us. To accept or to change or at least
try to change.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 09:16 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
Sorry to disagree, but IMO* , there is no such thing as "the way the world is".
We all are making the world.
I once had a Belgian Buyer with a "me" page reading that he and his wife through
their 3 children all supported children in Africa. I dearly relate to that, I
support education for children in Africa as well, and my children will too, so
I wrote him He explainedme that the reason why he subscribed each of his children
to that program is that way they will grow understanding and being aware that
not all children in the world have the same opportunities they have. There is
no doubt in my mind that these children are going to be more sensitive to others
realities and less egoccentric.
We have to make the change we want to see in the world, to quote a poet.
I love good news, they sell to me. I spread good news. They sell to the people
I'm spreading. The bad, not really. Unless it is to allert to something potentially
nefarious.
I could go on with examples of playlists on the radio and tv shows, but maybe
some other day...
*There is no such thing as IMHO either, just political correctness
|
We understand your points but the world will not be changed by the minority,
unfortunately. We don't buy newspapers anymore (Haven't for years) as
they are all about sensationalism. The web is filled with it. It is a sad fact
of life that that type of story/news is what sells papers, not the good news
that we all want to read.
A damming indictment on society, I am afraid We. like many others want to see
the change that is needed to get back to the 'good old days' (if there
ever were any of those)
You are right, of course there are many who deal in good news and try very hard
to promote a better 'everything' but their voices are faint and nowhere
near as loud as those who see the half empty glass rather than the half full
one.
The only thing that will resolve this particular issue is when the 'devil
in the detail' is known and of course time.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 10:19 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
Sorry to disagree, but IMO* , there is no such thing as "the way the world is".
We all are making the world.
I once had a Belgian Buyer with a "me" page reading that he and his wife through
their 3 children all supported children in Africa. I dearly relate to that, I
support education for children in Africa as well, and my children will too, so
I wrote him He explainedme that the reason why he subscribed each of his children
to that program is that way they will grow understanding and being aware that
not all children in the world have the same opportunities they have. There is
no doubt in my mind that these children are going to be more sensitive to others
realities and less egoccentric.
We have to make the change we want to see in the world, to quote a poet.
I love good news, they sell to me. I spread good news. They sell to the people
I'm spreading. The bad, not really. Unless it is to allert to something potentially
nefarious.
I could go on with examples of playlists on the radio and tv shows, but maybe
some other day...
*There is no such thing as IMHO either, just political correctness
|
We understand your points but the world will not be changed by the minority,
unfortunately.
|
I agreee, we/I will not change the world, but we are/ I am changing the world
of said children in Africa, that's for sure.
The world is the sum of our small worlds. It is the end result of the examples
we set. Not everyone will be a Mandela or a Madre Teresa, but if we all do our
nanopart, it will make a difference.
| | We don't buy newspapers anymore (Haven't for years) as
they are all about sensationalism. The web is filled with it. It is a sad fact
of life that that type of story/news is what sells papers, not the good news
that we all want to read.
A damming indictment on society, I am afraid We. like many others want to see
the change that is needed to get back to the 'good old days' (if there
ever were any of those)
You are right, of course there are many who deal in good news and try very hard
to promote a better 'everything' but their voices are faint and nowhere
near as loud as those who see the half empty glass rather than the half full
one.
The only thing that will resolve this particular issue is when the 'devil
in the detail' is known and of course time.
|
Regarding this particular issue, I think you mean LEGO taking over BrickLink?
I think there is potential for good things to arise but LEGO being a big corportation
and thus exposed to the possibility of legal actions, this will (already is)
taking a toll on BrickLink. These Custom Parts and Studio IP infrigements banning,
makes sense from a big corportation point of view, but for BrickLink they would
pass unoticed among raindrops. So it is good for LEGO, but will hurt BrickLink
a bit.
I really hope LEGO tries to understand what BrickLink is, the reason of its success.
As well as the AFOL mindset, which admittedly LEGO has been growing aware of,
since the LugNet ol'days (does anybody here remembers Jake?), with many AFOL
oriented sets, and now with the great AFOL Design program, sure LEGO made a long
way to understand the AFOL community and consider them am interesting and respectable
market.
I also hope that LEGO embraces the ReSellers. We've all been hearing sad
stories of LEGO banning them, which seems double standards to me, no matter how
you look at it.
I hope LEGO will make roundtables as well, and will have the oppotunity to hear
many interesting people with lots of interesting ideas that are not participating
on the Forum
I hope LEGO will provide BrickLink with 24/7 communication with the community.
Better site running and stability.
Better protection for Buyers, clearer store terms, inability for Seller retaliatory
feedback.
Better protection for Sellers, ability to cancel an order at Buyer's request
without fearing any feedback (void transaction without any feedback would be
ideal).
I really do hope that BrickLink will not be a footnote on the TLG, because in
a moment that the financial health of TLG decreases (hopefully not), BrickLink
would be the WeakestLink.
I want to believe that LEGO has the best intentions to maintain BrickLink independency
within the parameters of a big corportation, but without meddling too much, like
undercutting sellers, monitor which parts or sets are selling well or suddenly
out of stock and sell those parts themselves on BrickLink. (While it may appear
good for the Buyers in the short term, in the long term it would dictate the
end of BrickLink and hence, bad for the Buyers.)
And although these seems too much to ask for Xmas I think this takeover has
lots of potential and may be a great thing for BrickLink, the AFOL community
and also the casual Buyer or Seller.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 10:37 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
|
The answer to that is bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is, unfortunately
the way the world is. What a dreadful state of affairs that is
|
Sorry to disagree, but IMO* , there is no such thing as "the way the world is".
We all are making the world.
I once had a Belgian Buyer with a "me" page reading that he and his wife through
their 3 children all supported children in Africa. I dearly relate to that, I
support education for children in Africa as well, and my children will too, so
I wrote him He explainedme that the reason why he subscribed each of his children
to that program is that way they will grow understanding and being aware that
not all children in the world have the same opportunities they have. There is
no doubt in my mind that these children are going to be more sensitive to others
realities and less egoccentric.
We have to make the change we want to see in the world, to quote a poet.
I love good news, they sell to me. I spread good news. They sell to the people
I'm spreading. The bad, not really. Unless it is to allert to something potentially
nefarious.
I could go on with examples of playlists on the radio and tv shows, but maybe
some other day...
*There is no such thing as IMHO either, just political correctness
|
We understand your points but the world will not be changed by the minority,
unfortunately.
|
I agreee, we/I will not change the world, but we are/ I am changing the world
of said children in Africa, that's for sure.
The world is the sum of our small worlds. It is the end result of the examples
we set. Not everyone will be a Mandela or a Madre Teresa, but if we all do our
nanopart, it will make a difference.
| | We don't buy newspapers anymore (Haven't for years) as
they are all about sensationalism. The web is filled with it. It is a sad fact
of life that that type of story/news is what sells papers, not the good news
that we all want to read.
A damming indictment on society, I am afraid We. like many others want to see
the change that is needed to get back to the 'good old days' (if there
ever were any of those)
You are right, of course there are many who deal in good news and try very hard
to promote a better 'everything' but their voices are faint and nowhere
near as loud as those who see the half empty glass rather than the half full
one.
The only thing that will resolve this particular issue is when the 'devil
in the detail' is known and of course time.
|
Regarding this particular issue, I think you mean LEGO taking over BrickLink?
I think there is potential for good things to arise but LEGO being a big corportation
and thus exposed to the possibility of legal actions, this will (already is)
taking a toll on BrickLink. These Custom Parts and Studio IP infrigements banning,
makes sense from a big corportation point of view, but for BrickLink they would
pass unoticed among raindrops. So it is good for LEGO, but will hurt BrickLink
a bit.
I really hope LEGO tries to understand what BrickLink is, the reason of its success.
As well as the AFOL mindset, which admittedly LEGO has been growing aware of,
since the LugNet ol'days (does anybody here remembers Jake?), with many AFOL
oriented sets, and now with the great AFOL Design program, sure LEGO made a long
way to understand the AFOL community and consider them am interesting and respectable
market.
I also hope that LEGO embraces the ReSellers. We've all been hearing sad
stories of LEGO banning them, which seems double standards to me, no matter how
you look at it.
I hope LEGO will make roundtables as well, and will have the oppotunity to hear
many interesting people with lots of interesting ideas that are not participating
on the Forum
I hope LEGO will provide BrickLink with 24/7 communication with the community.
Better site running and stability.
Better protection for Buyers, clearer store terms, inability for Seller retaliatory
feedback.
Better protection for Sellers, ability to cancel an order at Buyer's request
without fearing any feedback (void transaction without any feedback would be
ideal).
I really do hope that BrickLink will not be a footnote on the TLG, because in
a moment that the financial health of TLG decreases (hopefully not), BrickLink
would be the WeakestLink.
I want to believe that LEGO has the best intentions to maintain BrickLink independency
within the parameters of a big corportation, but without meddling too much, like
undercutting sellers, monitor which parts or sets are selling well or suddenly
out of stock and sell those parts themselves on BrickLink. (While it may appear
good for the Buyers in the short term, in the long term it would dictate the
end of BrickLink and hence, bad for the Buyers.)
And although these seems too much to ask for Xmas I think this takeover has
lots of potential and may be a great thing for BrickLink, the AFOL community
and also the casual Buyer or Seller.
|
I Believe we are broadly in agreement. Yes it is about the takeover and most
importantly the 'devil is in the detail' and it will take time for this
to settle down so we can all see where we are going.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
I somehow knew you would get in on this.
By the wsay why can't I find your configurator anymore?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:16 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
|
What I saw below is not about politics.
I find it deeply disheartening to watch the slow spread of distrust and dislike
for news media and the critically important work they perform.
Journalists around the world are tortured, imprisoned, and murdered every year
for bringing the truth to light. Don't allow the missteps, greed, and biases
of some news outlets to inform your opinion of all media.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Since when have the media ever spread good news, they focus on the negative,
its what sells and allows 'them' to try and brainwash the masses.
|
What I saw below is not about politics.
I find it deeply disheartening to watch the slow spread of distrust and dislike
for news media and the critically important work they perform.
Journalists around the world are tortured, imprisoned, and murdered every year
for bringing the truth to light. Don't allow the missteps, greed, and biases
of some news outlets to inform your opinion of all media.
|
I don't believe we do. But it is the sensationalists that sell stories and
the peddlers of bad news far outweigh the good news people. The article in question
takes a relatively downcast view of the takeover of Bricklink by Lego. We all
will make up our own minds on it after it has had time to settle in and we understand
what is happening. Yes there are journalists who go through the pains you have
mentioned as well as their families. That is not right nor is it correct to take
things and make up stories about them when you have no idea what is really going
on. The writer in the Guardian (A relatively well thought of paper in the UK)
has taken a few quips from others and turned it into a doom and gloom article
and yet he knows less than we do about it.
Time will tell on all of this and people have to have patience to see what the
new owners intend to do. Then it will be time to decide what to do.
The other thread about 'here's a thought) showed that over 100 store
owners have invested well in excess of what it would cost to redevelop this site
- there is food for thought.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:57 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, calsbricks writes:
| | the peddlers of bad news far outweigh the good news people.
|
Any evidence to support this claim, or just a personal opinion based on your
experience with news media?
| | The article in question
takes a relatively downcast view of the takeover of Bricklink by Lego.
|
The reaction I've personally seen from the community has definitely trended
toward negativity (which, frankly, surprised me). A quote from the article:
"Adam White, editor of the Bricksfanz site, said fans’ reaction had been mostly
negative."
Is it possible that the reporter is unfamiliar with the adult LEGO fan community
and this is the impression received from reading what's out there? How much
of what has been posted right here in the BrickLink forums has been negative?
I haven't done any serious research on the overall trend of the reactions
to the sale of the site, but it is entirely within the realm of truth to see
the reactions as more negative than positive. An outlook I don't share,
by the way.
| | nor is it correct to take
things and make up stories about them when you have no idea what is really going
on.
|
Did we read the same article?
| | The writer in the Guardian (A relatively well thought of paper in the UK)
has taken a few quips from others and turned it into a doom and gloom article
and yet he knows less than we do about it.
|
She. Zoe Wood was the reporter. Could the story have been researched better?
Yes. Was the Guardian willing to pay for that kind of research for a low-priority
story like this? Probably not.
Still, the general feeling I've gotten from the community seems fairly in
line with what was reported in the article. If you have hard data to prove your
point that the community is collectively rather complacent and has taken a let's-wait-and-see
approach to the sale, then I'd like to see that data.
| | Time will tell on all of this and people have to have patience to see what the
new owners intend to do. Then it will be time to decide what to do.
|
You opinion. I share that opinion and additionally have a positive view of the
sale. But the way we look at things is not, from what I've seen, the majority
viewpoint.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 12:11 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
How much of what has been posted right here in the BrickLink forums has been negative?
I haven't done any serious research on the overall trend of the reactions
to the sale of the site, but it is entirely within the realm of truth to see
the reactions as more negative than positive. […]
|
Indeed.
There has been a lot of people coming to say “Doom!” Some repeated it several
times but most only posted once.
There has been a only few who tried to answer them sensibly.
I guess there’s a “silent majority” but if you count the number of different
people who posted something, I’d say “The ‘nays’ have it.”
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 12:16 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | the peddlers of bad news far outweigh the good news people.
|
Any evidence to support this claim, or just a personal opinion based on your
experience with news media?
|
None to hand but I am quite confident if it were that would be the case.
| |
| | The article in question
takes a relatively downcast view of the takeover of Bricklink by Lego.
|
The reaction I've personally seen from the community has definitely trended
toward negativity (which, frankly, surprised me). A quote from the article:
|
Not really sure why it surprised you. As you are very well aware (More than most
of us) the last takeover didn't work out the way we all wanted it to.
| |
"Adam White, editor of the Bricksfanz site, said fans’ reaction had been mostly
negative."
Is it possible that the reporter is unfamiliar with the adult LEGO fan community
and this is the impression received from reading what's out there? How much
of what has been posted right here in the BrickLink forums has been negative?
|
Highly - that is what we meant about taking snippets and turning that into doom
and gloom. On our own forum site the view of the majority of stores that responded
was 'undecided' - need to wait and see and that is our view as well.
It may not turn out the way we hope and then again it might surprise all of us.
But we won't know that for a while yet.
| |
I haven't done any serious research on the overall trend of the reactions
to the sale of the site, but it is entirely within the realm of truth to see
the reactions as more negative than positive. An outlook I don't share,
by the way.
|
I think all of us are aware of that being your thoughts.
| |
| | nor is it correct to take
things and make up stories about them when you have no idea what is really going
on.
|
Did we read the same article?
|
I am sure we did - not sure your question there,. The author took quotes from
various sites and wrote a doom and gloom article, almost completely ignoring
the Lego statements on the subject. We certainly did read the same article.
| |
| | The writer in the Guardian (A relatively well thought of paper in the UK)
has taken a few quips from others and turned it into a doom and gloom article
and yet he knows less than we do about it.
|
She. Zoe Wood was the reporter. Could the story have been researched better?
Yes. Was the Guardian willing to pay for that kind of research for a low-priority
story like this? Probably not.
|
Apologies - She. They waited nearly a month before this article so the answer
is no and obviously the ran out of things to put in the paper , hence this article.
| |
Still, the general feeling I've gotten from the community seems fairly in
line with what was reported in the article. If you have hard data to prove your
point that the community is collectively rather complacent and has taken a let's-wait-and-see
approach to the sale, then I'd like to see that data.
|
We do have our data from our site but only the results are available here not
the raw data.
41% said they were undecided, 24% were negative and 35% were positive. That is
from 60+ stores - the majority of whom are in the USA.
| |
| | Time will tell on all of this and people have to have patience to see what the
new owners intend to do. Then it will be time to decide what to do.
|
You opinion. I share that opinion and additionally have a positive view of the
sale. But the way we look at things is not, from what I've seen, the majority
viewpoint.
|
Not from the Bricklink forum posters it isn't. Hence why we would like a
poll capability here on this forum where people can vote in anonymity. But until
and unless Lego look at the redevelopment of the site, that isn't going to
happen.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 99 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, calsbricks writes:
| | 41% said they were undecided, 24% were negative and 35% were positive. That is
from 60+ stores - the majority of whom are in the USA.
|
I've gone through every response to the original announcement (except for
a couple that just came in during the past few minutes whilst I was working)
and here's my take on the positions expressed.
I tried to be completely unbiased and, for the sake of data transparency, am
including my data. It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | How does (113 not negative) to (47 negative) come up as the majority being negative? |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 13:56 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | How does (113 not negative) to (47 negative) come up as the majority being negative?
|
A fair question.
First, we must discount the entirety of the no-opinion column. If those people
chose not to express an opinion, then that is not data.
Then the only column in question is the wait-and-see people. For those, I could've
broken it down into positive wait-and-see and negative wait-and-see. It seemed
like too much interpretation on my part and the results seemed roughly equal
anyway.
The only real data to compare here are those who definitively expressed a for
or against position. At least that's how I saw it. Correct me where I'm
wrong.
And keep in mind that this is all somewhat open to interpretation anyway. Some
people clearly stated dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms. Others did the
opposite. For those in between, some judgment had to be made.
If you chose to review the comments in the thread, then you might report different
results.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, mfav writes:
| | How does (113 not negative) to (47 negative) come up as the majority being negative?
|
A fair question.
First, we must discount the entirety of the no-opinion column. If those people
chose not to express an opinion, then that is not data.
Then the only column in question is the wait-and-see people. For those, I could've
broken it down into positive wait-and-see and negative wait-and-see. It seemed
like too much interpretation on my part and the results seemed roughly equal
anyway.
The only real data to compare here are those who definitively expressed a for
or against position. At least that's how I saw it. Correct me where I'm
wrong.
And keep in mind that this is all somewhat open to interpretation anyway. Some
people clearly stated dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms. Others did the
opposite. For those in between, some judgment had to be made.
If you chose to review the comments in the thread, then you might report different
results.
|
That’s a chad story.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 14:06 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, mfav writes:
| | How does (113 not negative) to (47 negative) come up as the majority being negative?
|
A fair question.
First, we must discount the entirety of the no-opinion column. If those people
chose not to express an opinion, then that is not data.
|
I disagree. If you're including them in the sheet, then they're valid
data points.
| | Then the only column in question is the wait-and-see people.
|
That's not in question either. Their position is wait-and-see. If you include
them, they are valid data points.
| | The only real data to compare here are those who definitively expressed a for
or against position. At least that's how I saw it. Correct me where I'm
wrong.
|
Attempting that above.
If you compare just the positives to the negatives, then, agreed, negative has
more numbers.
If you compare the negatives to the cumulative not-negatives, then not-negative
has more numbers.
| | And keep in mind that this is all somewhat open to interpretation anyway. Some
people clearly stated dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms. Others did the
opposite. For those in between, some judgment had to be made.
If you chose to review the comments in the thread, then you might report different
results.
|
Not having an issue with the methodology, just the interpretation of the data.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 14:08 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | […]
Not having an issue with the methodology, just the interpretation of the data.
|
And yet none of you is in Florida….
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 14:25 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | I disagree. If you're including them in the sheet, then they're valid
data points.
|
| | If you compare just the positives to the negatives, then, agreed, negative has
more numbers.
If you compare the negatives to the cumulative not-negatives, then not-negative
has more numbers.
|
Ah, I get you now. I don't disagree with your interpretation. It is certainly
valid with the way the data is presented. I presented it that way for the sake
of representing every single person who replied to the original announcement.
In terms of drawing practical conclusions about how members feel about the sale,
it would be fair to say that those with a solidly fixed negative opinion are
in the minority. But it is also fair to say that when drawing conclusions based
solely on firmly stated for/against positions, the trend is negative (as you
conceded).
My point with all of this is that the reporter's conclusions about the issue
aren't necessarily unfounded and a knee-jerk reaction to media as untrustworthy
is not in the best interests of humanity as a whole.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 00:02 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, mfav writes:
| | How does (113 not negative) to (47 negative) come up as the majority being negative?
|
A fair question.
First, we must discount the entirety of the no-opinion column. If those people
chose not to express an opinion, then that is not data.
Then the only column in question is the wait-and-see people. For those, I could've
broken it down into positive wait-and-see and negative wait-and-see. It seemed
like too much interpretation on my part and the results seemed roughly equal
anyway.
The only real data to compare here are those who definitively expressed a for
or against position. At least that's how I saw it. Correct me where I'm
wrong.
And keep in mind that this is all somewhat open to interpretation anyway. Some
people clearly stated dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms. Others did the
opposite. For those in between, some judgment had to be made.
If you chose to review the comments in the thread, then you might report different
results.
|
You have me down as a wait and see, which is fairly accurate, but I was being
careful to avoid a negative viewpoint. All those people who were being cautious
were not negative comments, and should not be discarded from the total of non-negative
comments.
To the larger discussion, I was struck by the mostly level-headed response to
the news, and therefore I agree that the media often tilts toward the negative
because it makes a "better story"
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | 41% said they were undecided, 24% were negative and 35% were positive. That is
from 60+ stores - the majority of whom are in the USA.
|
I've gone through every response to the original announcement (except for
a couple that just came in during the past few minutes whilst I was working)
and here's my take on the positions expressed.
I tried to be completely unbiased and, for the sake of data transparency, am
including my data. It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
Interesting - thanks for taking the time to do that. The trouble is there were
multiple threads about it and not everyone commented in each thread. In addition
only a couple of our forum people are on there (The majority of them do not use
this forum and as the stats on the forum prove that has always been the case
) But still it is a representation and that adds to the flavour. I wonder what
Lego feel about all this - we were supposed to have AMA sessions but that hasn't
transpired yet.
Almost like politics - lots of promises but not much in the way of realties.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, calsbricks writes:
| | 41% said they were undecided, 24% were negative and 35% were positive. That is
from 60+ stores - the majority of whom are in the USA.
|
I've gone through every response to the original announcement (except for
a couple that just came in during the past few minutes whilst I was working)
and here's my take on the positions expressed.
I tried to be completely unbiased and, for the sake of data transparency, am
including my data. It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
Wow! Impressive work in the amount of time you did it in!
You don't see this type of data published often, and it's the more interesting
by far, IMHO
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 14:31 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
CORRECTION: The majority opinion was negative only when considering firmly stated
for or against positions.
The negative opinion was in the minority when considering all members who responded
to the original announcement.
Thanks to mfav for pointing this out.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 15:05 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, StormChaser writes:
| | It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
CORRECTION: The majority opinion was negative only when considering firmly stated
for or against positions.
The negative opinion was in the minority when considering all members who responded
to the original announcement.
Thanks to mfav for pointing this out.
|
But in the same way, one could say the positive opinion was in minority.
So:
— if considering firmly stated opinions, positive loses.
— if considering all messages, positive is a minority.
Positive lose in more ways than negative.
The crux is that “non-negative” is not ”positive” (and vice versa).
The report can’t be: “mostly it was ‘wait-and-see’ or ‘I don’t know,’” especially
as it’s not true because there was a majority of firmly stated opinions and those
were majorly negative.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 15:11 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | So:
— if considering firmly stated opinions, positive loses.
— if considering all messages, positive is a minority.
Positive lose in more ways than negative.
The crux is that “non-negative” is not ”positive” (and vice versa).
The report can’t be: “mostly it was ‘wait-and-see’ or ‘I don’t know,’” especially
as it’s not true because there was a majority of firmly stated opinions and those
were majorly negative.
|
All hail the spin doctors.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | So:
— if considering firmly stated opinions, positive loses.
— if considering all messages, positive is a minority.
Positive lose in more ways than negative.
The crux is that “non-negative” is not ”positive” (and vice versa).
The report can’t be: “mostly it was ‘wait-and-see’ or ‘I don’t know,’” especially
as it’s not true because there was a majority of firmly stated opinions and those
were majorly negative.
|
All hail the spin doctors.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 16:12 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | So:
— if considering firmly stated opinions, positive loses.
— if considering all messages, positive is a minority.
Positive lose in more ways than negative.
The crux is that “non-negative” is not ”positive” (and vice versa).
The report can’t be: “mostly it was ‘wait-and-see’ or ‘I don’t know,’” especially
as it’s not true because there was a majority of firmly stated opinions and those
were majorly negative.
|
All hail the spin doctors.
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsdy_rct6uo
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 16:13 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | So:
— if considering firmly stated opinions, positive loses.
— if considering all messages, positive is a minority.
Positive lose in more ways than negative.
The crux is that “non-negative” is not ”positive” (and vice versa).
The report can’t be: “mostly it was ‘wait-and-see’ or ‘I don’t know,’” especially
as it’s not true because there was a majority of firmly stated opinions and those
were majorly negative.
|
All hail the spin doctors.
|
Where’s the spinning in what I said? 
We have about a quarter of ‘doom is on us,’ ‘whoopee,’ ‘call me back next year,’
and ‘er…’ each.
You say “mostly negative” shan’t be the summary take on the situation.
I say “mostly positive” or “undecided (yet)” shan’t either.
No spinning here.
Unless you’re saying your arguments can’t be used for the other POVs?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 16:57 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | Where’s the spinning in what I said?
|
Wasn't suggesting that you spun it this way or that. Just that the same data
can be interpreted in various ways.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 17:22 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | Where’s the spinning in what I said?
|
Wasn't suggesting that you spun it this way or that. Just that the same data
can be interpreted in various ways.
|
Okay, I misinterpreted your message as directly and sarcasticly answering
mine
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 17:43 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | Okay, I misinterpreted your message as directly and sarcasticly answering
mine
|
The requested implementation of the font styling in the forum for sarcasm is
still pending.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jcvp17 | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 15:11 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | But in the same way, one could say the positive opinion was in minority.
|
| | Positive lose in more ways than negative.
The crux is that “non-negative” is not ”positive” (and vice versa).
|
Statistics is an art, which tries to help you make reasonable decisions when
you are surrounded by insurmountable uncertainty. Therefore, it is subject to
interpretation by its very nature.
Best regards.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 15:26 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, jcvp17 writes:
| | In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | But in the same way, one could say the positive opinion was in minority.
|
| | Positive lose in more ways than negative.
The crux is that “non-negative” is not ”positive” (and vice versa).
|
Statistics is an art, which tries to help you make reasonable decisions when
you are surrounded by insurmountable uncertainty. Therefore, it is subject to
interpretation by its very nature.
Best regards.
|
+1
Pretty much what my son related to me of his Stats professor's starting point
in the class. Also that he wrote college textbooks on the topic, and was considered
a bit of a rebel in academia. I know next to nothing about the subject, science
or art.
-Cory
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 16:01 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, StormChaser writes:
| | It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
CORRECTION: The majority opinion was negative only when considering firmly stated
for or against positions.
The negative opinion was in the minority when considering all members who responded
to the original announcement.
Thanks to mfav for pointing this out.
|
Agreed. I noted most positive opinions said as such and moved on. While the negative
opinions got each other riled up and continued the convo.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 16:24 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Adjour writes:
| | In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, StormChaser writes:
| | It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
CORRECTION: The majority opinion was negative only when considering firmly stated
for or against positions.
The negative opinion was in the minority when considering all members who responded
to the original announcement.
Thanks to mfav for pointing this out.
|
Agreed. I noted most positive opinions said as such and moved on. While the negative
opinions got each other riled up and continued the convo.
|
You’re implying there were more persons posting positive opinions than persons
posting negative ones.
That’s not what was said and that’s not true.
StormChaser counted the posters, not the posts, and the conclusion is there was
about a quarter of negative, positive, wait-and-see, and no-opinion each (resp.
47, 39, 37 and 37 people).
The debate between mfav and StormChaser was about whether “negative,” being the
biggest group but less than half, could be termed a majority.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | In General, Adjour writes:
| | In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, StormChaser writes:
| | It shows that, even though a range of opinions exist, the
majority opinion was negative. This is also what the news article reported.
|
CORRECTION: The majority opinion was negative only when considering firmly stated
for or against positions.
The negative opinion was in the minority when considering all members who responded
to the original announcement.
Thanks to mfav for pointing this out.
|
Agreed. I noted most positive opinions said as such and moved on. While the negative
opinions got each other riled up and continued the convo.
|
You’re implying there were more persons posting positive opinions than persons
posting negative ones.
That’s not what was said and that’s not true.
StormChaser counted the posters, not the posts, and the conclusion is there was
about a quarter of negative, positive, wait-and-see, and no-opinion each (resp.
47, 39, 37 and 37 people).
The debate between mfav and StormChaser was about whether “negative,” being the
biggest group but less than half, could be termed a majority.
|
My implication was only that there are a ton of toxic people on this board, and
they feed each other. Please do not strawman my post (as you have a pattern of
doing)
Meh. Carry on.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | nectara | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 16:46 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Adjour writes:
| | My implication was only that there are a ton of toxic people on this board ... sorry ... the same ton of toxic people on this board and
they feed each other. Please do not strawman my post (as you have a pattern of
doing)
Meh. Carry on.
|
I corrected it for you.
Regards
Nectara
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian News Article | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Adjour writes:
| | […]
My implication was only that there are a ton of toxic people on this board, and
they feed each other. Please do not strawman my post (as you have a pattern of
doing)
|
If you have accusations to make, make them and argument them.
I’m fed up with toxic generalizations like yours.
Yes, there are people who have bad behaviour or bad moments. Call them out when
they misbehave, flag them to admins, or ignore them.
But repeating ad nauseam “there are toxic people” doesn’t help. On the
contrary, it’s as “toxic” as the alleged misbehavings.
Yep, I have a duty: https://www.xkcd.com/386/
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jcvp17 | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 12:02 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hello!
In General, StormChaser writes:
| | Don't allow the missteps, greed, and biases
of some news outlets to inform your opinion of all media.
|
+1
+1
+1
...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Teup writes:
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
Every sale or transfer of this site has shown a decline in the functionality
of BrickLink. I do not see that there will be an improvement and that Lego will
consider this site a money making proposition. If they did not think that, they
would not have bought it. Lego, after all, is for profit. That is their bottom
line. So far they have kicked off Brickarms. And yes, I am in the doom column
and there is nothing wrong. I hope that I am wrong.
I see the 3% fee going away. I see something more like ebay feedback or the
feedback being eliminated. I see Lego making sellers not undercut the cost of
bricks that they sell in their Shop at Home site. I also see not allowing current
sets to be sold on Bricklink. At one time they gave Peeron permission to post
the instructions, except for the current and I believe the past years. So they
could do that with new sets. Lego is all about profit. They are not Lego enthusiasts
unless it is about sales.
I hope that I am wrong.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:46 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, legoman77 writes:
| | In General, Teup writes:
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
Every sale or transfer of this site has shown a decline in the functionality
of BrickLink. I do not see that there will be an improvement and that Lego will
consider this site a money making proposition. If they did not think that, they
would not have bought it. Lego, after all, is for profit. That is their bottom
line. So far they have kicked off Brickarms. And yes, I am in the doom column
and there is nothing wrong. I hope that I am wrong.
I see the 3% fee going away. I see something more like ebay feedback or the
feedback being eliminated. I see Lego making sellers not undercut the cost of
bricks that they sell in their Shop at Home site. I also see not allowing current
sets to be sold on Bricklink. At one time they gave Peeron permission to post
the instructions, except for the current and I believe the past years. So they
could do that with new sets. Lego is all about profit. They are not Lego enthusiasts
unless it is about sales.
I hope that I am wrong.
John P
|
I think it is fair to say JOhn that we all hope you are wrong
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:47 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 11:47 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, legoman77 writes:
| | In General, Teup writes:
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
My goodness why the focus on all de doom thinkers, now it sounds like everyone
assumes it will be terrible. That's neither correct, nor to our advantage.
I thought the replies to the news were really pretty balanced. We've seen
a whole range of different opinions and expectations. But I guess that's
how media work.
|
Every sale or transfer of this site has shown a decline in the functionality
of BrickLink. I do not see that there will be an improvement and that Lego will
consider this site a money making proposition. If they did not think that, they
would not have bought it. Lego, after all, is for profit. That is their bottom
line. So far they have kicked off Brickarms. And yes, I am in the doom column
and there is nothing wrong. I hope that I am wrong.
I see the 3% fee going away. I see something more like ebay feedback or the
feedback being eliminated. I see Lego making sellers not undercut the cost of
bricks that they sell in their Shop at Home site. I also see not allowing current
sets to be sold on Bricklink. At one time they gave Peeron permission to post
the instructions, except for the current and I believe the past years. So they
could do that with new sets. Lego is all about profit. They are not Lego enthusiasts
unless it is about sales.
I hope that I am wrong.
John P
|
Well here's my take on that: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1170213
Of course LEGO is all for profit, but Bricklink is not a profitable site (at
least, that's the general consensus). Instead I think they just want to own
the part of the "production line" where their sets get turned into AFOL food,
namely the parts. Raising fees would be foolish, people will just sell elsewhere.
I think LEGO just wants to secure their selling of sets by 1. Selling more sets
to happy AFOLs with a good Bricklink and 2. Selling more parts to AFOLs through
the work of BL sellers parting out the sets.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | nectara | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 16:41 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Teup writes:
but Bricklink is not a profitable site (at least, that's the general consensus)
Wow
So Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim paid millions for a not profitable site than Lego paid even
more millions for the same not profitable site ... interesting way to do business...
Regards
Nectara
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 18:01 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, nectara writes:
| | In General, Teup writes:
but Bricklink is not a profitable site (at least, that's the general consensus)
Wow
So Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim paid millions for a not profitable site than Lego paid even
more millions for the same not profitable site ... interesting way to do business...
Regards
Nectara
|
It's surprising you're now defending Bricklink as a cash cow because
that would mean they have plenty of budget to solve their problems, problems
that you often seemed to just accept as the way things are. Anyway what most
members as well as Bricklink have been saying is that Bricklink doesn't have
much money. And I don't think that Lego bought Bricklink for its money making
potential. There are tons of things that are smarter to buy if making a quick
buck is the idea. Lego is smarter than that. It seems clear to me they bought
Bricklink for what it is - an essential piece that facilitates part of their
business, the AFOL business - rather than for a quick buck.
If I were Lego, I'd do everything to own a marketplace that is THE one and
only place to go. Maybe I'd make it free, compensate volunteers (probably
with Lego sets) to have the most complete catalog possible, so that there's
no competition possible and there is no question about where to buy Lego. I'd
own the whole chain. The extra sales from a stable system like that and the improved
customer service that can direct costumers to buy any part there probably far
outweigh messing around with fee percentages to scrape bits of money off the
transactions.
In the end all parts are produced and sold by LEGO, so the better and more efficient
the whole pipeline is, the better. We don't have the numbers and figures
so this is all speculation and we can never be sure. But not wanting to save
money on infrastructure makes sense to me.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | nectara | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Teup writes:
| |
It's surprising you're now defending Bricklink as a cash cow because
that would mean they have plenty of budgets to solve their problems, problems
that you often seemed to just accept as the way things are.
|
Bricklink it is a cash cow.
Bricklink it's a business who generate profit.
Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim bought Bricklink to make a profit.
Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim didn't want to spend his profit on Bricklink.
Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim take his profit and leave it to Lego to invest.
So, Bricklink it is a cash cow.
Regards
Nectara
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Captain_Q | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 18:57 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, nectara writes:
| | In General, Teup writes:
| |
It's surprising you're now defending Bricklink as a cash cow because
that would mean they have plenty of budgets to solve their problems, problems
that you often seemed to just accept as the way things are.
|
Bricklink it is a cash cow.
Bricklink it's a business who generate profit.
Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim bought Bricklink to make a profit.
Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim didn't want to spend his profit on Bricklink.
Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim take his profit and leave it to Lego to invest.
So, Bricklink it is a cash cow.
Regards
Nectara
|
Plus, it's double dipping for Lego.
Everything on Bricklink has already been sold by TLG once.
I think they are really going to expand on that AFOL designer program from around
a half a year ago.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 00:20 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Whenever I read the original announcements, I am still struck by the very miniscule
amount said about Bricklink as a marketplace. Although we, as sellers are very
conscious of the selling aspect of Bricklink, the announcement text indicates
that Lego's motivation is about fan community and interaction. I take them
at their word in that regard.
The trend toward customer interaction, user experience, and related brand-consumer
relationship is growing across a number of industries, because companies see
value in it. Based on that, we should not assume that profit arising from Bricklink
seller's fees is of key importance to Lego's business decision to buy
Bricklink. It may even be peripheral.
My suspicion is that Lego came into the deal with a clear idea of how Bricklink
would fit within their strategies for fan based customer brand loyalty and all
that, but probably have a much fuzzier idea of what to do with the actual marketplace
and its sellers. And, I think it will take them a while before they learn enough
about the marketplace to decide what to do about it, either positively, or negatively.
This suggests to me that dreams of Lego investing in enhancements to sellers
experience are fanciful.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2019 04:53 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, calebfishn writes:
| | Whenever I read the original announcements, I am still struck by the very miniscule
amount said about Bricklink as a marketplace. Although we, as sellers are very
conscious of the selling aspect of Bricklink, the announcement text indicates
that Lego's motivation is about fan community and interaction. I take them
|
| | at their word in that regard.
|
And that was from both sides - well spotted. It seems the focus is to be on AFOL
Designer program (which could be a minefield
| |
The trend toward customer interaction, user experience, and related brand-consumer
relationship is growing across a number of industries, because companies see
value in it. Based on that, we should not assume that profit arising from Bricklink
seller's fees is of key importance to Lego's business decision to buy
Bricklink. It may even be peripheral.
|
There are quit4e a few of us who believe Bricklink did not reach profitability
(overall)but their accounts are buried in amongst the groups so we will never
really know. It is perhaps a bit of a moot point as they have been sold now and
the site is now part of Lego. They are still a family owned business so it will
not really be possible to determine what contribution they will be making.
| |
My suspicion is that Lego came into the deal with a clear idea of how Bricklink
would fit within their strategies for fan based customer brand loyalty and all
that, but probably have a much fuzzier idea of what to do with the actual marketplace
and its sellers. And, I think it will take them a while before they learn enough
about the marketplace to decide what to do about it, either positively, or negatively.
This suggests to me that dreams of Lego investing in enhancements to sellers
experience are fanciful.
|
You may be closer to reality than you think. With the mountain of data they now
own and their ability to 'data mine' it lots of things cvould happen,
none of which we should be discussing here.
Time will tell and by this time next year a heck of a lot more will be known.
Brickowl could grow substantially, a new site could spring up or all will be
well under the Lego flag.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 06:59 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, stacey_love writes:
Firstly thank you for posting this. Interesting read.
With our love of stats we have been monitoring this situation across a large
number of sites since the announcement. The most consistent answer to it has
been undecided - need to wait until the detail has been published. That remains
the case. It does look, however like the deal has now been done (completed) as
when we paid our fees yesterday we paid the Lego company not Bricklink.
So now maybe after the holidays and into early 2020 we will all find out what
this really means to our stores.
Lots of emphasis everywhere on MOC's but no one is really talking about the
majority of stores who sell parts.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jenwick | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 08:18 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, stacey_love writes:
Thanks for posting. As others have said, I don't think all is doom and gloom.
I, for one, am hopefully optimistic that the site will now have the backing
that is needed to fix the infrastructure that plagues us all.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TheBrickGuys | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2019 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, jenwick writes:
| | In General, stacey_love writes:
Thanks for posting. As others have said, I don't think all is doom and gloom.
I, for one, am hopefully optimistic that the site will now have the backing
that is needed to fix the infrastructure that plagues us all.
|
With all the long, well thought out, responses being posted here on the topic
at hand I feel compelled to post a long response so that I do not appear stupit
to others here in the community. So in this regard, it is now my turn to submit
a lengthy response to the topic at hand and for this I have chosen to respond
in length to your optimistic view. So here we go:
+1
Jim
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 05:05 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | minithings4life | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 05:22 | | Subject: | Re: Guardian " lego take ovrer BL" | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | It did actually make it into the printed copy. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2019 05:48 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
|
|
|
France, Occitanie
Netherlands, Utrecht
United Kingdom, England
Portugal
Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen
USA, Vermont
Canada, Ontario
Spain, Catalonia
