|  | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday  | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2024 20:34 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I didn't realize 32064b was on the chopping block.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | rickcraine | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2024 20:41 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I didn't realize 32064b was on the chopping block.
|
Wasn't there that whole controversy with that guy who claimed to have used
it in a "moc on top of a stud so therefore it was useful" even though
it cannot fit on top of a stud 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2024 20:48 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I didn't realize 32064b was on the chopping block.
|
Wasn't there that whole controversy with that guy who claimed to have used
it in a "moc on top of a stud so therefore it was useful" even though
it cannot fit on top of a stud
|
32064b could go on a hollow stud. I would have spoken up on it, but I didn't
realize it was on the block.
We definitely could have talked about it on the catalog panel if the catalog
panel had EVER been consulted about this.
There went a double handful of my catalog work and all the give-a-darn that I
had stockpiled. I think I'll go touch grass and see if it is everything
people talk it up to be.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Dhobeck | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2024 20:54 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I didn't realize 32064b was on the chopping block.
|
Wasn't there that whole controversy with that guy who claimed to have used
it in a "moc on top of a stud so therefore it was useful" even though
it cannot fit on top of a stud
|
32064b could go on a hollow stud. I would have spoken up on it, but I didn't
realize it was on the block.
We definitely could have talked about it on the catalog panel if the catalog
panel had EVER been consulted about this.
There went a double handful of my catalog work and all the give-a-darn that I
had stockpiled. I think I'll go touch grass and see if it is everything
people talk it up to be.
|
This minifigure seems fine after touching it 
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2024 20:59 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Dhobeck writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I didn't realize 32064b was on the chopping block.
|
Wasn't there that whole controversy with that guy who claimed to have used
it in a "moc on top of a stud so therefore it was useful" even though
it cannot fit on top of a stud
|
32064b could go on a hollow stud. I would have spoken up on it, but I didn't
realize it was on the block.
We definitely could have talked about it on the catalog panel if the catalog
panel had EVER been consulted about this.
There went a double handful of my catalog work and all the give-a-darn that I
had stockpiled. I think I'll go touch grass and see if it is everything
people talk it up to be.
|
This minifigure seems fine after touching it
|
I brought some in and set it on my desk. I really don't know what all the
fuss is about. It's like a long skinny leaf?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Dhobeck | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2024 21:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Dhobeck writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I didn't realize 32064b was on the chopping block.
|
Wasn't there that whole controversy with that guy who claimed to have used
it in a "moc on top of a stud so therefore it was useful" even though
it cannot fit on top of a stud
|
32064b could go on a hollow stud. I would have spoken up on it, but I didn't
realize it was on the block.
We definitely could have talked about it on the catalog panel if the catalog
panel had EVER been consulted about this.
There went a double handful of my catalog work and all the give-a-darn that I
had stockpiled. I think I'll go touch grass and see if it is everything
people talk it up to be.
|
This minifigure seems fine after touching it
|
I brought some in and set it on my desk. I really don't know what all the
fuss is about. It's like a long skinny leaf?
|
Essentially. The only things is it makes white parts stain green 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 00:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, rickcraine writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I didn't realize 32064b was on the chopping block.
|
Wasn't there that whole controversy with that guy who claimed to have used
it in a "moc on top of a stud so therefore it was useful" even though
it cannot fit on top of a stud
|
32064b could go on a hollow stud. I would have spoken up on it, but I didn't
realize it was on the block.
We definitely could have talked about it on the catalog panel if the catalog
panel had EVER been consulted about this.
|
The catalog panel was informed of this merge project months before it was announced
publicly. But the purpose of the panel is to bring community voice to the development
team, not contribute to catalog policy.
We do address catalog policy when it comes up, but it's definitely a sideline
issue, as are all issues that relate to other BrickLink teams, like Marketplace
and Studio. Panel meetings are not the place to debate proposed variant merges.
The Forum is, and there was plenty of debate and even opportunity for more debate.
| | There went a double handful of my catalog work and all the give-a-darn that I
had stockpiled. I think I'll go touch grass and see if it is everything
people talk it up to be.
|
We knew the hardest thing about this project was having to undo some work that
the community had done. The important thing moving forward, though, is that no
one is going to keep investing in that handful of variants that we removed. This
will also force us to consider more closely the addition of variants in the future,
to avoid this happening again.
And, like I said clearly before, we have a complete record of all modern inventory
change requests. They are all preserved in the Forum for those that want to see
what you discovered in your sealed sets. And the vast majority of your work is
still completely intact and helping other members, so let's not paint this
as a total loss.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 05:43 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
The important thing moving forward, though, is that no
| | one is going to keep investing in that handful of variants that we removed.
|
This is a serious understatement. From now until I don't know when, I'm
not investing in any of the variants.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 19:57 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 10:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | | |
We definitely could have talked about it on the catalog panel if the catalog
panel had EVER been consulted about this.
|
The catalog panel was informed of this merge project months before it was announced
publicly. But the purpose of the panel is to bring community voice to the development
team, not contribute to catalog policy.
|
Unless there was a meeting I missed somehow, I do not recollect that we were
informed of this project or asked to give any input or suggestions. There was
a brief mention that there was a variant project but no details or timetables
were ever given. Considering that many people on the Panel were among those who
expressed surprise and dismay when this was all introduced, I would think that
those meetings would indeed have been an ideal place to breach the subject with
the members at large.
| | We do address catalog policy when it comes up, but it's definitely a sideline
issue, as are all issues that relate to other BrickLink teams, like Marketplace
and Studio. Panel meetings are not the place to debate proposed variant merges.
The Forum is, and there was plenty of debate and even opportunity for more debate.
|
Perhaps it was not the place to discuss the exact specifics of each part being
looked at. But it would have been good to know how the project would be introduced
and carried out. We are supposed to be looking out for the community and sharing
out expertise after all.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 11:21 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | | |
We definitely could have talked about it on the catalog panel if the catalog
panel had EVER been consulted about this.
|
The catalog panel was informed of this merge project months before it was announced
publicly. But the purpose of the panel is to bring community voice to the development
team, not contribute to catalog policy.
|
Unless there was a meeting I missed somehow, I do not recollect that we were
informed of this project or asked to give any input or suggestions. There was
a brief mention that there was a variant project but no details or timetables
were ever given. Considering that many people on the Panel were among those who
expressed surprise and dismay when this was all introduced, I would think that
those meetings would indeed have been an ideal place to breach the subject with
the members at large.
|
The only thing I recollect is talking about the need to tackle the variants on
the catalog, but nothing specific, I must have missed it too.
| |
| | We do address catalog policy when it comes up, but it's definitely a sideline
issue, as are all issues that relate to other BrickLink teams, like Marketplace
and Studio. Panel meetings are not the place to debate proposed variant merges.
The Forum is, and there was plenty of debate and even opportunity for more debate.
|
Perhaps it was not the place to discuss the exact specifics of each part being
looked at. But it would have been good to know how the project would be introduced
and carried out. We are supposed to be looking out for the community and sharing
out expertise after all.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 20:35 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | | |
We definitely could have talked about it on the catalog panel if the catalog
panel had EVER been consulted about this.
|
The catalog panel was informed of this merge project months before it was announced
publicly. But the purpose of the panel is to bring community voice to the development
team, not contribute to catalog policy.
|
Unless there was a meeting I missed somehow, I do not recollect that we were
informed of this project or asked to give any input or suggestions. There was
a brief mention that there was a variant project but no details or timetables
were ever given. Considering that many people on the Panel were among those who
expressed surprise and dismay when this was all introduced, I would think that
those meetings would indeed have been an ideal place to breach the subject with
the members at large.
|
The only thing I recollect is talking about the need to tackle the variants on
the catalog, but nothing specific, I must have missed it too.
| |
| | We do address catalog policy when it comes up, but it's definitely a sideline
issue, as are all issues that relate to other BrickLink teams, like Marketplace
and Studio. Panel meetings are not the place to debate proposed variant merges.
The Forum is, and there was plenty of debate and even opportunity for more debate.
|
Perhaps it was not the place to discuss the exact specifics of each part being
looked at. But it would have been good to know how the project would be introduced
and carried out. We are supposed to be looking out for the community and sharing
out expertise after all.
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
He only claims that we were informed of the project and that is the truth. We
were told that it existed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2024 20:53 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 19:53 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, UTLF writes:
| | cool, what about the help desk backlog that people have been talking about for
the past month?
|
Apparently destroying years of peoples hard work is more important than helping
others.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | UTLF | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 20:21 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 10:22 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
I would like to see an update on this grooved variant that was merged:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1457688
Thanks,
~Jen
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Saitobricks.ca | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 19:51 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Disgusting.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Dhobeck | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2024 19:52 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
Disgusting.
|
At least they are getting it done
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 19, 2024 05:42 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
How much data space would it take to have two catalogs? One for detailed data
and one for generalized marketplace?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 19, 2024 06:39 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - April 16 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | […]
How much data space would it take to have two catalogs? One for detailed data
and one for generalized marketplace?
|
The problem isn’t space, it’s consistency and workload.
Basically, you’re doubling the workload.
If you make a change in one of the catalogues, should it be echoed on the other
one? To which extent? Can that be automatized?
In the software world, that’s called a fork (external / by another team) or a
branch (internal / by the same team).
We have tools and procedures to follow and “port” (transfer, apply) changes between
branches / versions / forks (‘diffs’ and ‘patches’ and ‘version control system’
(git, bitkeeper, mercurial…)).
And those tools are good and ‘smart.’ They can work around other changes and
differences that shouldn’t change (and (good) devs are lazy: everything that
can be automatized is automatized).
But we ALWAYS need to check the changes. The changes may apply without a hitch…
but they may break the program because they contradict an older change. That
can also be automatized, to some extent. But it’s work again and you can never
predict everything so you always need to check.
Duplicating a database and the changes on the database can be automitized in
the same way: changes are just instructions, like a program. So the same porting
solutions & problems apply: Should that change be applied? Can it be applied?
Should another change be applied instead? And you always need to check, check,
check.
Also, you first need to record these instructions. AFAIK, BrickLink’s changelogs
aren’t complete / sufficient.
TL;DR: It’s the same as the work done by Rebrickable: another catalogue, with
conversion tables, with changes to follow / apply or not, with errors or misses…,
and with a full team to manage it.
It could be a bit simpler and you could save a bit by keeping it inside BrickLink,
but that won’t remove most of the work needed.
Another possibility is to handle that in only one “catalogue,” with two (or more!)
different ways to present its info. The work would be done only once, in the
more detailed catalogue, and there would be mechanisms to hide the details to
the users. But that’s the same as the “umbrella part” solution: you need to
change the whole structure of the database and the way the site works. That
can’t be patched onto what exists now (which is already patched enough with spaghetti
and sauce as it is).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, Ontario
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine