|
 |
| | | Author: | mfav  | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 13:53 | | Subject: | Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 136 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:14 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
I cannot locate 10507 in the catalog. Please post a link.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
I cannot locate 10507 in the catalog. Please post a link.
|
Sorry, dyslexia kicking in
15070
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:36 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Sorry, dyslexia kicking in
|
I figured so. I tried an assortment of item numbers using the numbers you gave,
but to no avail.
So that part is one of the parts that exists in a non-standard size, meaning
a size that is not easily measured in stud dimensions. Another way to look at
it, as has been done in the past, is that it makes little sense to have stud-size
dimensions for parts like this.
For some of these parts dimensions were added in the past. Sometimes the dimensions
were added for the base only (as in this case) and at other times dimensions
were added based on the base + attachment (as you suggest should be done here).
For tens of thousands of other similar parts, stud-size dimensions simply weren't
allowed. In fact, 28,000+ parts in the catalog lack dimensions for this reason.
This is a known issue that needs to be addressed and is item seven on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:52 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | ... it makes little sense to have stud-size
dimensions for parts like this.
|
It makes no sense to have stud size dimensions for anything in the dimensions
field. Having some dimensions being mm and others being studs makes all of them
useless.
If there are stud size dimensions, relegate them to the description field until
such time as there is a database rethink. Populate the dimensions field...systematically...x,
y, z...in mm...and that ought to go some way towards sorting out the volume calculations
for shipping and whatnot, wouldn't it?
My two cents towards more fully developing roadmap #7.
Also, why are some things 1 x 2 and other things 2 x 1? That's confusing
as all get out.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:01 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | It makes no sense to have stud size dimensions for anything in the dimensions
field. Having some dimensions being mm and others being studs makes all of them
useless.
|
There shouldn't be any parts in the catalog with millimeters or centimeters
in the dimensions field (only everything else but parts). If you know of any
items in the Parts item type that use something other than stud-size dimensions,
then these need to be corrected.
| | If there are stud size dimensions, relegate them to the description field until
such time as there is a database rethink.
|
This honestly is a good idea. But it would require individually changing the
dimensions for 30,501 parts.
| | Also, why are some things 1 x 2 and other things 2 x 1? That's confusing
as all get out.
|
It's confusing to many people. This is what the catalog has been operating
off of, pretty much unchanged, for two decades:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=261
Even in my new catalog help pages, I struggled with the topic. The new page
is frankly not much better:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2486
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:29 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | This honestly is a good idea. But it would require individually changing the
dimensions for 30,501 parts.
|
Yeah. So?
(I'd think Axaday would be all over it once he stops taunting Bill.)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:02 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | ... it makes little sense to have stud-size
dimensions for parts like this.
|
It makes no sense to have stud size dimensions for anything in the dimensions
field. Having some dimensions being mm and others being studs makes all of them
useless.
|
+1
And it's simpler to measure parts in [mm] than converting in studs and having
some funny dimension like this part
Size: 1.12 x 2 x 1.67 in studs
Description: 1 1/8 x 2 x 1 2/3
| |
If there are stud size dimensions, relegate them to the description field until
such time as there is a database rethink. Populate the dimensions field...systematically...x,
y, z...in mm...and that ought to go some way towards sorting out the volume calculations
for shipping and whatnot, wouldn't it?
My two cents towards more fully developing roadmap #7.
Also, why are some things 1 x 2 and other things 2 x 1? That's confusing
as all get out.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:07 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | And it's simpler to measure parts in [mm] than converting in studs and having
some funny dimension
|
The primary purpose for including stud-size dimensions is so that builders will
know the size of a part that they may not own and how that part would fit (or
if it would fit at all) into a MOC.
So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:22 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
The primary purpose for including stud-size dimensions is so that builders will
know the size of a part that they may not own and how that part would fit (or
if it would fit at all) into a MOC.
So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
Is the size field searchable?
Because if it is not, then it greatly reduces its usefulness.
(I can’t test if it is because I don’t know of a part that would have a size
field without having the dimensions also repeated in their description. So if
I search a dimension, I can’t tell if the part was found by its size or by its
description.)
This size field is exactly what mfav was talking about for the reforging of the
description: dimensions should be one (or three) of the closed-valued fields
that should replace the free-valued description field.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:42 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
The primary purpose for including stud-size dimensions is so that builders will
know the size of a part that they may not own and how that part would fit (or
if it would fit at all) into a MOC.
So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
Is the size field searchable?
Because if it is not, then it greatly reduces its usefulness.
|
I do not think it's searchable
If you take this part as example
Size: 1.12 x 2 x 1.67 in studs
Description: 1 1/8 x 2 x 1 2/3
Searching "1.12" or "1.67" will not return this part.
It return the same result as "1 12" or "1 67"
The search form replace '.' with ' '
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | […]
| | Is the size field searchable?
Because if it is not, then it greatly reduces its usefulness.
|
I do not think it's searchable
If you take this part as example
Size: 1.12 x 2 x 1.67 in studs
Description: 1 1/8 x 2 x 1 2/3
Searching "1.12" or "1.67" will not return this part.
It return the same result as "1 12" or "1 67"
The search form replace '.' with ' '
|
Okay, thanks.
And that’s also another example of the description containing the size but in
another for (fractions instead of decimals). So the more I look into the size
field and the less it’s useful.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
That's true if the stud size dimensions are accurate; but when something
is really 1 x 1.4 but is labeled 1 x 1...not so much.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TheBrickGuys | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:43 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
That's true if the stud size dimensions are accurate; but when something
is really 1 x 1.4 but is labeled 1 x 1...not so much.
|
But by looking at the picture it is very easy to determine what is meant by the
1x1 size and it is easy to see that the tooth sticks over the edge adding a little
more dimensional size to it but at least you can know the general size.
Jim
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, TheBrickGuys writes:
| | But by looking at the picture it is very easy to determine what is meant by the
1x1 size and it is easy to see that the tooth sticks over the edge adding a little
more dimensional size to it but at least you can know the general size.
|
True, but in terms of discovery...search...if you want to find something that's
1x1 and you find all these other things: 1 1/3, 1.4, 1 1/8, how useful is that
set of results?
Now granted, the whole search mechanism and the whole database need to be addressed,
but either the data is correct or it is incorrect. Sort of correct, sometimes,
in some instances, if you look at a picture, and so on...that's just noise
to be sifted through. So the results are useless or nearly useless.
Folks have settled for this dog poop data here for so long, they've become
accustomed to or accepting of it. And there's no need. These things can be
fixed now...at least to some degree. Everybody has their own kludge. Nobody should
need one.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:58 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, TheBrickGuys writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
That's true if the stud size dimensions are accurate; but when something
is really 1 x 1.4 but is labeled 1 x 1...not so much.
|
But by looking at the picture it is very easy to determine what is meant by the
1x1 size and it is easy to see that the tooth sticks over the edge adding a little
more dimensional size to it but at least you can know the general size.
|
Okay, the picture.
And tt’s somewhat okay to have only “1 x 1” within the description because it’s
followed by a “with…”, but what help is “1x1” in the size field?
Or we could talk about this part:
which doesn’t have anything in its size field but with the same “rule” would
be deemed of size 1 x 2.
The description field doesn’t give you the real size at all.
The picture doesn’t give you a useful approximation.
And were the size field filled this way (1x2), it would be useless.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Or we could talk about this part:
which doesn’t have anything in its size field but with the same “rule” would
be deemed of size 1 x 2.
|
That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Or we could talk about this part:
which doesn’t have anything in its size field but with the same “rule” would
be deemed of size 1 x 2.
|
That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
That it ought.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:39 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | | | That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
That it ought.
|
If the next argument I hear is that it should be a 1 x 2 because that's how
many anti-studs are on the bottom then the
should also be a 1 x 2, right?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | | | That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
That it ought.
|
If the next argument I hear is that it should be a 1 x 2 because that's how
many anti-studs are on the bottom then the
should also be a 1 x 2, right?
|
Sure should, and the description should be “Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with Tipper
End Flat with Pins”!
Barman, another one! The seagulls can walk.¹
(¹ Meaning it’s low tide. I don’t know if that translates well  )
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 04:51 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | And it's simpler to measure parts in [mm] than converting in studs and having
some funny dimension
|
The primary purpose for including stud-size dimensions is so that builders will
know the size of a part that they may not own and how that part would fit (or
if it would fit at all) into a MOC.
So stud-size dimensions have a legitimate purpose. If I'm building something,
I don't want to pull out a tape measure and start counting millimeters to
decide if a part I like (but don't own) will fit where I need it to fit.
|
But stud dimensions can be in the title...?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| | But stud dimensions can be in the title...?
|
I did not design this website or the way it's intended to function. 
Nor do I have any significant input on the way it will operate in the future,
at least from a design standpoint.
But we can talk about all this in further detail if/when the dimensions project
occurs.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 14:18 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, mfav writes:
| | Why is 10507 listed as 1x1 in studs?
|
[P=10507]
| | 10507 is
x: 7.9mm
y: 11.2mm
z: 11.1mm
making it 1 x 1.4 in studs.
Is this just another one of those places of inconsistency madness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Vermont
Switzerland, Vaud
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana