|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2022 17:09 | | Subject: | Alt Item Number | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Catalog Associate | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
|
88092
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2022 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: Alt Item Number | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
We do not yet add printed parts’ design numbers to alternate item numbers. Therefore,
this request could not be completed.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2023 12:30 | | Subject: | Re: Alt Item Number [Appeal to Reason] | | Viewed: | 159 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | We do not yet add printed parts’ design numbers to alternate item numbers.
|
So these alternate item numbers aren't design numbers?
Yes, I added those design numbers. And now that you know where they are, you
can remove them if you choose. My question is this: why? How have they hurt
anything since they've been used for those parts?
This issue is not addressed anywhere in catalog policy AFAIK, so your reason
for discarding this request was literally as you stated: We just don't do
it. Consider that in light of the fact that multiple PCCs are added per item
in a specific color.
This is a database of LEGO parts. The idea is to be able to find parts in the
database. And the design ID is a single alternate item number per part. Consider
here that actual item numbers are made more difficult to locate by adding a bunch
of inconsistent BL gibberish at the end, beginning, or middle of the part number
(the letter "C" for example). So why is there objection to making something
easier to find?
Failing to include TLG identifying numbers used both by the company and by other
websites deserves more than "We just don't do that kind of thing here"
as a reason.
So I'm asking you: is there a better reason for discarding this request?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2023 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Alt Item Number [Appeal to Reason] | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So I'm asking you: is there a better reason for discarding this request?
|
I have additional thoughts.
First: the alternate item number field is plenty big enough to include a single
item number per printed design. You're not using that space for many items,
so you're protecting empty space by insisting it stay empty. Only a little
over 3% of parts have alternate item numbers.
Second: aren't the entire class of mini doll heads already cataloged here
on BrickLink solely by design number?
Third: the alternate item number space is already used for things like PCCs and
other assorted numbers:
[P=76371pb071]
[P=76371pb073]
Fourth: this question is just rhetorical and not addressed to anyone in particular,
except perhaps to the LEGO Group themselves. Is there any serious and big-picture
thinking going on in catalog development behind the scenes at this website yet?
Or is it still just coasting along, putting out fires, finding workarounds,
devoting resources elsewhere, unproductive meetings, abhorring change, and dreading
the possibility that members will discover the boat being rocked?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 5, 2023 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: Alt Item Number [Appeal to Reason] | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | We do not yet add printed parts’ design numbers to alternate item numbers.
|
So these alternate item numbers aren't design numbers?
|
They do look like them. I had no idea those were in the catalog.
| | Yes, I added those design numbers.
|
Okay, that makes sense now.
| | And now that you know where they are, you
can remove them if you choose. My question is this: why? How have they hurt
anything since they've been used for those parts?
|
They have not hurt anything as far as I can tell, but we don't have a policy
in place either way on the subject. I was just going on what had been done in
the past until this point in time.
| | This issue is not addressed anywhere in catalog policy AFAIK, so your reason
for discarding this request was literally as you stated: We just don't do
it. Consider that in light of the fact that multiple PCCs are added per item
in a specific color.
|
PCCs are easily added and accepted due to the ability to add them via a standard
form. There is no such functionality for alternate item numbers as you are well
aware. Therefore, all of these numbers have to be manually entered by the admins
through catalog change requests that would flood the forums (literally hundreds
per year). This leads to more work on top of our already very heavy workload.
| | This is a database of LEGO parts. The idea is to be able to find parts in the
database. And the design ID is a single alternate item number per part. Consider
here that actual item numbers are made more difficult to locate by adding a bunch
of inconsistent BL gibberish at the end, beginning, or middle of the part number
(the letter "C" for example). So why is there objection to making something
easier to find?
|
The Design IDs for printed parts are obsolete after LEGO discontinues the parts
from their online databases. Therefore, they are only around for a couple to
a few years. After that time, any link between other websites is forever lost
with the LEGO database, Brickset, etc. What isn't lost is the part number
molded into the part. And in the near future after any printed part is released,
it will be most easily found with that part number and not some number that cannot
be found anywhere any longer. I think BrickLink always had this method of approach
correct, and the other admins agree.
| | Failing to include TLG identifying numbers used both by the company and by other
websites deserves more than "We just don't do that kind of thing here"
as a reason.
So I'm asking you: is there a better reason for discarding this request?
|
I think I have given enough reasons above. We will be adding this into the guidelines.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oklahoma
