Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.
You must be 16 or over to participate in the Brickset Forum. Please read the announcements and rules before you join.

Brickset.com site issues

15791011

Comments

  • 77ncaachamps77ncaachamps Aspiring Time Traveler Stuck in the WestMember Posts: 1,751
    @TigerMoth ;

    The main focus for me was to be as true as possible to the original set. How is anyone trying to rebuild the original set going to be able to do so when there are changes to the instructions and/or inventory lists?

    I understand that online inventories are fan-created thus open to mistakes. That's not even tackling the online inventory changes by Lego that are correlated with these inventories.

    But to leave 36 1x4s on the Brickset inventory site would be misleading unless there was a notation about said changes.


  • VorpalRyuVorpalRyu AustraliaMember Posts: 1,743
    @77ncaachamps All inventories for #75030 list part 15573 (Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud), but my set has 3794. Three of our friends have the set & each one has different parts, one had 3794 & 3794b, one had the listed piece (15573) & the last had all three (two of part 15573). If Lego adds the other two parts to the inventory for #75030, which is the correct part?
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,155
    edited September 2015
    @TigerMoth ;

    The main focus for me was to be as true as possible to the original set. How is anyone trying to rebuild the original set going to be able to do so when there are changes to the instructions and/or inventory lists?

    I understand that online inventories are fan-created thus open to mistakes. That's not even tackling the online inventory changes by Lego that are correlated with these inventories.

    But to leave 36 1x4s on the Brickset inventory site would be misleading unless there was a notation about said changes.
    Brickset's inventories are NOT fan-created. They come directly from the LEGO Customer Service site's replacement parts database. This database wasn't created as a reference source for fans. It exists to allow people who receive a set with missing or broken pieces to replace those pieces. So they'd be doing a disservice to fans if they only included the original version of a piece even if that version of the piece was discontinued and out-of-stock and a functionally identical version was in-stock.

    If you want to know what version of the part was originally in the set, usually the inventory in the back of the instruction manual is accurate to the set's first run. With that said, even a sealed set does not always include the exact same versions of parts as the set's first run, and sometimes there is even some random variability in which version of a part it will include. LEGO generally does not care about minute differences between parts, and when transitioning from one version of a part to another they will sometimes use them interchangeably even in new, sealed sets.
    VorpalRyu
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343

    The main focus for me was to be as true as possible to the original set.

    Most of the time, there's no such thing as the "original set" because there are different versions of it - probably even on the very first day a set is released. I suspect most people don't realise the variations, and even fewer care.

    77ncaachamps said:

    How is anyone trying to rebuild the original set going to be able to do so when there are changes to the instructions and/or inventory lists?

    In general terms, I have no idea. Nor do I care. More importantly, TLG don't care either.

    If YOU, personally, want to do it, then your best bet is to find an instruction book and go from there. Even then, that may be wrong. Obviously the books are designed and printed before the sets are packed. They will contain the part numbers current at the time of printing. By the time they are packed, that part may have been superseded by a slightly different design, such that NO set ever actually contains the exact set of parts shown in the manual.

    You might get away with using one of the fan-created inventories because they ought to be a true representation of one or more actual sets. If you trust them.

    As I've said, "Replacement parts" on lego.com, normally has the current part number - anything else wouldn't make sense. If you want a replacement part, then the only thing TLG can offer you is what they think they have. Having said that, you might order a part with a new number, but actually receive an older design.

    I imagine that, or it's equivalent, is effectively the source for Brickset's inventories. The thing is that TLG change them. Not only do they change the parts when a part is updated, but they add things. No everything is available. That's not because it goes out of production - when that happens, the part is still shown, but marked as unavailable. However some parts are never shown, maybe because they're licensed. But there are other reasons - particularly for larger one-off parts. However, TLG may subsequently add them to their site, so it makes sense for Brickset to periodically update their existing inventories too.


    But to leave 36 1x4s on the Brickset inventory site would be misleading unless there was a notation about said changes.

    The inventories here are automatically generated. For someone to go through them and correct them would be a massive task, especially as it would need to be done repeatedly. They're probably the best we have, but there will still be thousands of errors. Look at the top of the inventory of virtually any set and it contains two counts - one for the number of pieces believed to be in the set and another for the number in the inventory. They are rarely the same.

    If you think it can be done automatically in some way, then consider that what one person regards as being the same isn't necessarily the same as what the next person does.
    VorpalRyu
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Aanchir said:
    I don't type fast enough any more :-(
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 5,669
    Thank you for that, @TigerMoth: our inventories do indeed come from LEGO CS and are provided merely as an easier way to see them compared to using LEGO.com.

    We have no plans to make local corrections: it would be a full-time job.
    VorpalRyu
  • 77ncaachamps77ncaachamps Aspiring Time Traveler Stuck in the WestMember Posts: 1,751
    Thank you for the enlightenment, fellas.

    Didn't realize how much of Brickset was automated. Having worked with other fan wikis, I just jumped to assumptions.

    Just sounds like a mess with no simple, single resolution.
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 5,669
    Virtually everything is automated, or at least simplified. Pretty much the only manual data input we do is to add new set information and images, and even then some of it comes from various data feeds or shop.LEGO.com automatically.
    VorpalRyu
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    Bricklink tends to have the original inventories if you need them - original in the sense that they tend to be the first version released inventoried, with any amendments found by others noted.

    VorpalRyuSumoLego
  • AleyditaAleydita BelgiumMember Posts: 496
    Thank you for the enlightenment, fellas.

    Didn't realize how much of Brickset was automated. Having worked with other fan wikis, I just jumped to assumptions.

    Just sounds like a mess with no simple, single resolution.

    www.rebrickable.com, www.bricklink.com and www.brickowl.com all carry inventories for most Lego sets, and all 3 allow you to buy any parts you may need.

    Bricklink is the largest user-contributed source while Brickowl takes Brickset's approach and uses Lego's official inventory feed which is then amended as necessary by users.  Rebrickable is a great resource but I'm not sure how their inventories are created.

    www.peeron.com is another source of set inventories but I don't think it's updated any more.

    If you're planning a project it's probably best to check all of these before committing, and bringing up any discrepancies here on Brickset.
  • VorpalRyuVorpalRyu AustraliaMember Posts: 1,743
    @Aleydita I'm pretty sure all the sets at Rebrickable are done by the users, I can't vouch for all the content there, but the Throne of Ultron SDCC set is 100% accurate to the instruction booklet inventory (as I submitted it). The instruction booklet inventory matched what was in the box 100%, no variations on parts (not true for two of my other SDCC sets Luke's Landspeeder & Rocket's Warbird). I know I've had to report several sets for incorrect parts, mostly listing parts as trans-orange, when the part is trans-neon orange.

    Speaking of SDCC sets, I have to finish cleaning up the scans of the SDCC booklets & convert them to PDFs... @Huw, did you manage to nail down if TLG is okay with Brickset having PDF copies of the SDCC instructions?
    Aleydita
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343

    CCC said:
    Bricklink tends to have the original inventories if you need them - original in the sense that they tend to be the first version released inventoried, with any amendments found by others noted.


    Bricklink has its own problems. The biggest of which is that each inventory is compiled in a different fashion which makes them inconsistent - although it's getting better.

    They don't use the correct part numbers of colour names. That might be OK if there was a one-to-one correlation  between the official version and theirs - but there often isn't. The most obvious example is probably with the various "silver" colours that have been used over the years.

    They also use their own part numbers - for a kick-off, TLG don't use suffixes. There are historic reasons for all that, but do you continue to live in the past or do you look to the future? Sometimes, they update an entry when the real part number becomes known, but usually they don't. Nor do they correctly distinguish between variants of the same part. If a design change is obvious, then they might get it right; if it isn't, then some inventories will show the correct part and others won't - as I said, it's inconsistent and depends on who uploads it. Some people care about all detail differences; some people, probably most of them, only care about the differences that they think will affect them personally. But there are plenty of sets that are listed as having a part that hasn't been produced for many, many for years.

    Many of the inventories contain errors. Maybe they're corrected later, but maybe not. It often seems that certain individuals want to be the first person to post an inventory, and take short-cuts in the process.

    Some are obviously taken by looking at the instructions - probably the PDF, because they get the colours wrong. In the instructions, the parts are ordered by colour. If all the Dark Stone Grey Parts are shown as Black, then it's because someone has looked at the instructions, not handled the bricks. We've also determined that the instructions inventories are often wrong, because they pre-date production. But they're also wrong because they don't include the spares.

    Yes, Bricklink is peer-reviewed. But there aren't many people who will stand up and say that somebody else is wrong.

    If you want to play with this sort of thing, then there are a number of ways of getting good approximations to reality. Combining methods might bring you nearer to the truth. However, for the purist, unless TLG start to make more information available, there will always be a grey area of doubt and uncertainty. It would be nice if TLG did play ball, but I don't see it as likely - there's nothing in it for them, but if they make a mistake, they might be handing sensitive information to their competitors.
    CCCVorpalRyu
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    VorpalRyu said:

    @Aleydita I'm pretty sure all the sets at Rebrickable are done by the users, I can't vouch for all the content there, but the Throne of Ultron SDCC set is 100% accurate to the instruction booklet inventory (as I submitted it).
    I don't wish to knock your efforts, but did you actually take a magnifying glass to every single piece to examine the part numbers? Oh, but there are printed parts in that set, which don't carry their part numbers, only that of the base piece. And parts without numbers.

    I think you're talking about Rebrickable, and their inventory carries your name. It lists several different colours for a part labelled as 4073. That part hasn't been produced for many years, so it's not going to be in a set from this year. I'm also quite certain that it will never be produced again. 4073 is widely believed to be a 1 x 1 round plate. It isn't. 4073 was a sprue consisting of two similar plates, presumably to simplify production. We've moved on from there which is why I don't imagine it will every be produced again.

    And while we're at it, the solid and transparent parts are listed with the same part number. The former are ABS; the latter polycarbonate. That means they've got different part numbers - 6141 and 30057 until very, very recently (and perhaps they still are - I have no way of finding out).

    Correct. Possibly. 100% accurate? No. Sorry. This comes back to what I said earlier about Bricklink - everybody has their own standards.
    Aleydita
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    edited September 2015
    TigerMoth said:

    They don't use the correct part numbers of colour names. That might be OK if there was a one-to-one correlation  between the official version and theirs - but there often isn't. The most obvious example is probably with the various "silver" colours that have been used over the years.

    They also use their own part numbers - for a kick-off, TLG don't use suffixes. There are historic reasons for all that, but do you continue to live in the past or do you look to the future? Sometimes, they update an entry when the real part number becomes known, but usually they don't. Nor do they correctly distinguish between variants of the same part. If a design change is obvious, then they might get it right; if it isn't, then some inventories will show the correct part and others won't - as I said, it's inconsistent and depends on who uploads it. Some people care about all detail differences; some people, probably most of them, only care about the differences that they think will affect them personally. But there are plenty of sets that are listed as having a part that hasn't been produced for many, many for years.

    Neither does lego. They have used different part numbers for the same part at times, and one colour name / number for different colours.

    Two of the points of BL using their own numbering scheme are to give numbers where lego has none and to give similar code numbers to similar parts (such as printed torsos). It is much easier to search through types of heads with recessed stud / blocked open stud etc. Whereas lego often use one number to refer to both types of modern head stud.

    Sure there are some errors, especially with older parts. If people really care about detailed differences, they can update the information. But note that lego's inventories are worse here, since they actively replace old / out of stock parts with the modern equivalent.

    TigerMoth said:

    Many of the inventories contain errors. Maybe they're corrected later, but maybe not. It often seems that certain individuals want to be the first person to post an inventory, and take short-cuts in the process.

    I don't know what you mean by many. I'd say relatively few that have been on there for two months or more contain (serious) errors. Simply because errors that are spotted are corrected.

    Some are obviously taken by looking at the instructions - probably the PDF, because they get the colours wrong. In the instructions, the parts are ordered by colour. If all the Dark Stone Grey Parts are shown as Black, then it's because someone has looked at the instructions, not handled the bricks. We've also determined that the instructions inventories are often wrong, because they pre-date production. But they're also wrong because they don't include the spares.

    Mistakes can happen from both inventories and from the parts. Which set has all the dark stone grey (or BL DBG) listed as black? Let them know and they'll correct it. That sort of major error gets noticed and corrected as soon as a seller parts a set out. If inventories don't contain the extras straight away, they tend to get added by someone else. Although in my opinion this mistake is made by people using the lego inventory online rather than using the set. Of course, online lego inventories also don't contain these parts either so at worst BL is as bad as lego here. This is just one reason BL inventories are better than lego's own lists.

    Remember also that sometimes there is no such thing as the original version. Two sets bought in the first week of sale can possibly have different extras, or different variants of a similar part. There is no right or wrong in that case.
    Yes, Bricklink is peer-reviewed. But there aren't many people who will stand up and say that somebody else is wrong.

    There are plenty of people that do, that is why there are inventory change requests that go through.

    Personally I believe BL inventories are more complete than lego's replacement parts lists. They tend to be complete, whereas many of lego's are missing some parts (especially licensed sets, although these are getting better now). They tend to have the extras listed (lego doesn't) and they don't get updated with newer versions of replacement parts when original items go out of stock (lego does).

    Of course, they are used as two very different things. BL lists try to be a snapshot of what was originally released. Lego's lists try to be a resource so that people that have lost parts (or want to build a set) can get hold of the parts from current stock.

    drdavewatford
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    CCC said:

    Neither does lego. They have used different part numbers for the same part at times, and one colour name / number for different colours.
    Yes, but they are TLG's numbers and names to play with. What they do with them may be confusing, but they're correct almost by definition.
    CCC said:

    Two of the points of BL using their own numbering scheme are to give numbers where lego has none
    I think you'll find TLG has numbers for everything. Whether you can determine what they are is a different matter.
    CCC said:

     Whereas lego often use one number to refer to both types of modern head stud.
    TLG regard them as being the same part. I would say there are functional differences but, once again,  it's their choice to make not mine.
    CCC said:

    But note that lego's inventories are worse here, since they actively replace old / out of stock parts with the modern equivalent.
    The only inventories that TLG produce are those in the instructions - which are probably the most accurate ones available. Occasionally a part may be updated  before a set is actually produced, but that's about it.

    What's available on their web site aren't actually inventories, nor are they intended as such. If we choose to use them that way then the have to make allowances for that. They are lists of parts that they will sell or give to you if something is broken or missing. With that in mind, it is entirely appropriate that part numbers are updated to current versions.
    CCC said:

    Which set has all the dark stone grey (or BL DBG) listed as black? Let them know and they'll correct it. That sort of major error gets noticed and corrected as soon as a seller parts a set out.
    I've no idea, and it's probably been corrected. However, my point was that, particularly if you look at a brand new set on the day of release (or before), the Bricklink inventories often appear to have been rushed and accuracy takes second place, something that doesn't breed confidence. Over time, that may well be resolved but you never know at what point it's correct. If ever.
    CCC said:

    If inventories don't contain the extras straight away, they tend to get added by someone else. Although in my opinion this mistake is made by people using the lego inventory online rather than using the set. Of course, online lego inventories also don't contain these parts either so at worst BL is as bad as lego here. This is just one reason BL inventories are better than lego's own lists.
    I was actually referring to the inventories in the instructions not containing the spares, and therefore copying them to Bricklink being inappropriate.

    Notwithstanding the point that TLG doesn't have online inventories, what they do offer doesn't (or didn't - I can't get to the new site at the moment) include a count. In that repsect they includes the spares as much as they include anything (there are very few sets where none of a particular part is used). Sure, you can persuade it to give you a count, but it's not necessarily correct because it's capped. Look at Tower Bridge. It has more than 500 brick yellow cheese wedges. If you lose them, TLG will (or would) only let you order 200 of them.
    CCC said:

    Remember also that sometimes there is no such thing as the original version. Two sets bought in the first week of sale can possibly have different extras, or different variants of a similar part. There is no right or wrong in that case.
    That was the very first point I made on the subject. However there are still rights and wrongs.
    CCC said:

    Personally I believe BL inventories are more complete than lego's replacement parts lists. They tend to be complete, whereas many of lego's are missing some parts (especially licensed sets, although these are getting better now). They tend to have the extras listed (lego doesn't) and they don't get updated with newer versions of replacement parts when original items go out of stock (lego does).

    Of course, they are used as two very different things. BL lists try to be a snapshot of what was originally released. Lego's lists try to be a resource so that people that have lost parts (or want to build a set) can get hold of the parts from current stock.
    I have no problem with any of that. However, all of what I have said is true - Bricklink does have its own problems.

    Anybody who is seeking to make serious use of any of this type of information, from any of the sites, needs to understand the limitations of them all. They, and only they, can then make an informed decision according to what they are trying to achieve.
    Aleydita
  • AleyditaAleydita BelgiumMember Posts: 496
    TigerMoth said:

    It lists several different colours for a part labelled as 4073. That part hasn't been produced for many years, so it's not going to be in a set from this year. I'm also quite certain that it will never be produced again. 4073 is widely believed to be a 1 x 1 round plate. It isn't. 4073 was a sprue consisting of two similar plates, presumably to simplify production. We've moved on from there which is why I don't imagine it will every be produced again.

    And while we're at it, the solid and transparent parts are listed with the same part number. The former are ABS; the latter polycarbonate. That means they've got different part numbers - 6141 and 30057 until very, very recently (and perhaps they still are - I have no way of finding out).
    BL's self-imposed numbering system really gets on my bits at times. They don't have a complete list of 6-7 digit part numbers either so trying to find the right part can be a real pain sometimes. The 4073 thing is interesting, I never knew that, think the 2-on-sprue thing must have been before my time.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Aleydita said:

    BL's self-imposed numbering system really gets on my bits at times. They don't have a complete list of 6-7 digit part numbers either so trying to find the right part can be a real pain sometimes. The 4073 thing is interesting, I never knew that, think the 2-on-sprue thing must have been before my time.
    The sprue's actually on Bricklink - they call it 4073c01 (and there are even some for sale). Now THAT's annoying, because it shows they know about it, but still doggedly keep using the part number incorrectly - and it's not as if the proper numbers aren't known.

    The longer numbers (what TLG calls "Element ID", at least, they do when it comes to bricks) include all sorts of things that probably wouldn't interest anybody. For example, there are something like 3000 numbers just for T-shirts.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    Think about elements like printed torsos. Lego currently use two different part numbers to cover all torsos (BL=torso assembly), and each part gets its own element ID. Whereas BL uses its own ("self imposed") numbering system that has a single prefix, with a numbering system that is incremental roughly by date issued.

    Then take heads. They get different part numbers and different element IDs. Totally inconsistent. BL does as before, a prefix number for the head, followed by sequentiallly assigned number to ID it. Plus a "self imposed" description to help search for it. 

    BL cares about consistency, as it documents past and present. Lego doesn't care so much, it only cares about present distribution (internal) and prrsent selling parts (external).

    If I could only use one numbering system, I'd go for BLs.
    VorpalRyu
  • AleyditaAleydita BelgiumMember Posts: 496
    BL can use whatever numbering system they like for me, if everyone's happy with it then great, but it'd be nice if it came with references to the system that Lego uses. If a torso or head is listed as "xxxxxxx" in an instructions book, typing that number into BL should bring it up. Not always the case, in fact, in the case of printed elements, it rarely is in my experience.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    CCC said:
    Think about elements like printed torsos. Lego currently use two different part numbers to cover all torsos (BL=torso assembly), and each part gets its own element ID. Whereas BL uses its own ("self imposed") numbering system that has a single prefix, with a numbering system that is incremental roughly by date issued.

    Then take heads. They get different part numbers and different element IDs. Totally inconsistent. BL does as before, a prefix number for the head, followed by sequentiallly assigned number to ID it. Plus a "self imposed" description to help search for it.
    Comparing a head with a torso doesn't really work because one is a single piece, whereas the other is a combination of other parts. A torso is printed before it's assembled, so the final part is an combination of other parts, one of which happens to be printed - in much the same way that other assembled parts are combination of other parts which happen to be in different colours; it isn't a part that's just been printed. And lets face it, bricks in different colours have the same Design ID.

    For example torso 2814 in #4000010 is 6089142. It has a Design ID, as you'd expect, of 76382.

    What you probably don't know, or you wouldn't have raised it, is that without arms, fresh from the printing machine, it has a Part ID of 6089141 and a Design ID of 18793. That is entirely consistent with a head - print it and it gets a new Design ID. Of course, it is then united with it's arms. Do that with the appropriate pieces of any colour, or print, and you get something with a Design ID of 76382. No inconsistencies anywhere. You just think it's inconsistent because you're only in possession of part of the story.
  • VorpalRyuVorpalRyu AustraliaMember Posts: 1,743
    TigerMoth said:
    VorpalRyu said:

    @Aleydita I'm pretty sure all the sets at Rebrickable are done by the users, I can't vouch for all the content there, but the Throne of Ultron SDCC set is 100% accurate to the instruction booklet inventory (as I submitted it).
    I don't wish to knock your efforts, but did you actually take a magnifying glass to every single piece to examine the part numbers? Oh, but there are printed parts in that set, which don't carry their part numbers, only that of the base piece. And parts without numbers.

    I think you're talking about Rebrickable, and their inventory carries your name. It lists several different colours for a part labelled as 4073. That part hasn't been produced for many years, so it's not going to be in a set from this year. I'm also quite certain that it will never be produced again. 4073 is widely believed to be a 1 x 1 round plate. It isn't. 4073 was a sprue consisting of two similar plates, presumably to simplify production. We've moved on from there which is why I don't imagine it will every be produced again.

    And while we're at it, the solid and transparent parts are listed with the same part number. The former are ABS; the latter polycarbonate. That means they've got different part numbers - 6141 and 30057 until very, very recently (and perhaps they still are - I have no way of finding out).

    Correct. Possibly. 100% accurate? No. Sorry. This comes back to what I said earlier about Bricklink - everybody has their own standards.
    I entered all the part numbers & when the numbers didn't bring up the exact same part with matching number, I found the closest part in the Rebrickable's inventory & went with that, which as good as you are going to get in those sorts of circumstances.

    I agree, everyone has different standards, you included. While the systems used by BrickLink, Brickowl, Rebrickable & here at Brickset aren't perfect, the people involved in building these sites have done an admirable job with the level of information available to them. If you have such serious misgivings about the information provided by these sites, perhaps you should build one that is up to your standards.

    As for needing a magnifying glass to read the numbers? I still have better than 20/20 vision & can read the numbers unaided, not everyone over 30 has failing eyesight...
    dougts
  • DadsAFOLDadsAFOL USAMember Posts: 546
    Aleydita said:
    BL can use whatever numbering system they like for me, if everyone's happy with it then great, but it'd be nice if it came with references to the system that Lego uses. If a torso or head is listed as "xxxxxxx" in an instructions book, typing that number into BL should bring it up. Not always the case, in fact, in the case of printed elements, it rarely is in my experience.
    BL does have all of the element ID's cross referenced.  Enter any 7-digit element ID in the search box and it will show you the part and color that it applies to.  They just don't use the element IDs as the primary catalog reference so that its easier for users to navigate parts.
  • ShibShib UKMember Posts: 4,068
    Apparently this thread needs to be renamed Bricklink.com site issues

    ;-)
    VorpalRyukiki180703
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    DadsAFOL said:
    Aleydita said:
    BL can use whatever numbering system they like for me, if everyone's happy with it then great, but it'd be nice if it came with references to the system that Lego uses. If a torso or head is listed as "xxxxxxx" in an instructions book, typing that number into BL should bring it up. Not always the case, in fact, in the case of printed elements, it rarely is in my experience.
    BL does have all of the element ID's cross referenced.  Enter any 7-digit element ID in the search box and it will show you the part and color that it applies to.  They just don't use the element IDs as the primary catalog reference so that its easier for users to navigate parts.
    Yes, and if they don't have the element ID logged (which is true for some parts) then the user can add to the catalogue. But that is the problem with community lead databases, some people only want to take and not give.
  • AleyditaAleydita BelgiumMember Posts: 496
    CCC said:

    Yes, and if they don't have the element ID logged (which is true for some parts) then the user can add to the catalogue. But that is the problem with community lead databases, some people only want to take and not give.

    Just in case that was aimed at me, I've contributed 1,000s of times to updating BO's catalogue. I don't bother with BL because I'm not a massive user of the site these days. Sorry if that makes me a heathen.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343

    VorpalRyu said:

    I agree, everyone has different standards, you included.
    But "accurate" only has one meaning.
    VorpalRyu said:

    As for needing a magnifying glass to read the numbers? I still have better than 20/20 vision & can read the numbers unaided, not everyone over 30 has failing eyesight...
    Maybe you can, but I wouldn't be so confident. I've seen a Technic panel (or rather, a matching pair) where the number is so small, a fraction of a millimetre, that I could only see that it WAS a number with a magnifying glass. Reading it was much harder.
    CCC said:

    But that is the problem with community lead databases, some people only want to take and not give.
    That's a bit difficult when the underlying system is different. Nor is it likely to change all the time people, like you, think the sun shines out of Bricklink's nether regions.

    A round plate is not 4073; they know it but they stick with it. Yes, there are issues trying to use TLG's numbering for their purposes but surely  the answer lies in adapting the system rather than misusing it. The LDraw system, for that's what it is, was designed at a time when not as much data was available as subsequently. Surely, as more information comes to light, it ought to be taken on board and the system adapted. Over time, the rift is only going to become bigger, and you can be pretty sure that TLG are not going to change theirs.

    There's also more to this "give" lark than doing what somebody else is going to do any way. I've just told you how torso (and, by implication, other assembled parts) numbering works and quoted information that I doubt you'll find anywhere else. That takes quite bit of research and time - a lot more than sitting down and creating incorrect inventories. There are a few other people chasing that sort of thing, but not many. Having said that, it would seem there are more people than I had imagined that have noticed and been concerned by theses things, whether or not they have the resources to pursue them.

    You like Bricklink? Fine. You like to "give". Fine. So rather than argue defending their inadequacies, how about trying to address them? I wish you luck.

    As far as I'm concerned, as long as Bricklink continue to resist TLG's approach, then they might as well be talking about Mega Bloks.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    TigerMoth said:

    A round plate is not 4073; they know it but they stick with it.
    They don't just stick with it though, do they? They used it in the past, so it remains in place. However, they also use the up-to-date part numbers 6141 and 30057. So anyone searching for a 1x1 round plate using the lego part number will find it just as easily as if they didn't still have the 4073 assignment attached to the part. Why remove something used historically if it doesn't actually change anything apart from loss of that historical data? As a bonus, if they search for an opaque one, they will also see all the trans ones under the same listing and vice versa. Whereas as lego considers them different parts the same is not true under lego's system. Someone could use the part number for a 1x1 round tile to find out what colours it comes in but won't be able to find the trans ones if they are searching with the ABS version.

    TigerMoth said:

    As far as I'm concerned, as long as Bricklink continue to resist TLG's approach, then they might as well be talking about Mega Bloks.

    They don't resist their approach, they enhance it. They are using many of the up-to-date part numbers, along with the historically ones before such data was released by lego. They also use many of the element IDs. However, they also link them together.

    So if someone wants to buy a reddish brown hood on BL they could enter any of the three part numbers used for hoods in the past (even if not for reddish brown hoods). Or they can enter the element IDs 4227655 or 4655372. All five codes will find the part they are after.

    If they were to adopt the strict lego stance, then 4227655 and 4655372 are completely different items. Sellers would have to decide which code to use, or split their stock into two. Similarly buyers would have to decide which part they wanted and risk missing out if they use the less popular code. And in fact on lego replacement parts if a buyer was looking for 4227655 (or part number 30381) having looked up the element ID in the manual, then lego would tell the buyer that they cannot purchase it as it is out of stock. They will not tell them about the other element ID 4655372 that is in stock. Whereas as BL ties them together. So it uses the existing lego numbering at the same time as enhancing it by linking the same parts together. Would it have mattered if in the past they had no official number, so they had used an ID of hood01 or xxhg06 or something else unofficial. Would it matter if they kept that ID linked to the part if they were using the up-to-date publicly released code IDs? For me, no. It makes no difference, and at the same time helps people that have already logged the old ID in their projects.

    To me, the BL approach makes more sense than the lego one. It builds on it, whilst making it more user friendly where there are inconsistencies such as the one above.

    If BL  are talking megabloks, I hope you don't use the minifig section on brickset or indeed most other fan sites. After all, the data, naming schemes and photos are obtained direct from BL, using the BL numbering system. Something that cannot be done with the lego database. So many people rely on the bricklink numbering rather than the alternatives such as the Bartneck taxonomy - you only need to look in marketplace when people are trading minifigs and if a code is used it tends to be the BL one not the taxonomy one(*). Are they all talking megabloks, as they should be using the combination of the 4 lego element IDs for the individual parts? *BO uses the taxonomy after being denied permission to use the BL one.

    VorpalRyudougts
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    CCC said:

    They used it in the past, so it remains in place. However, they also use the up-to-date part numbers 6141 and 30057. So anyone searching for a 1x1 round plate using the lego part number will find it just as easily as if they didn't still have the 4073 assignment attached to the part.
    4073 has never been a single round plate. If you list a set on Bricklink that contains one, it shows up as 4073. That's simply wrong because it doesn't. If you attempt to use it on lego.com, or, heaven forbid, Brickset, you get nowhere. The former is the root, not Bricklink. They should be working around it, not changing it. If Bricklink shuffled off this mortal coil, as it looked like it might at one stage, then you're left with a system that effectively has no basis.
    CCC said:

    If they were to adopt the strict lego stance, then 4227655 and 4655372 are completely different ite and it all ms.
    We don't know why those two parts have different Design IDs - or many others. One day, that may change make sense. However, it is very difficult to decide that two parts "are the same" because it's subjective. You've already pointed out an issue with the different design of studs on heads - for some people it matters; for others it doesn't. If, the two parts above turn out to be made of different materials and one cracks and the other doesn't, then people will suddenly be very interested in the fact that they aren't the same. TLG make a decision in that regard - an informed one. Life gets complicated when someone else makes a different, uninformed one.
    CCC said:

    Would it have mattered if in the past they had no official number, so they had used an ID of hood01 or xxhg06 or something else unofficial. Would it matter if they kept that ID linked to the part if they were using the up-to-date publicly released code IDs?
    There are plenty of parts where, when the entry was created the number was unknown. You then have no choice but to invent one. The method chosen was to start it with a letter - which works because it's totally outside the system TLG use. So far, so good. However, when the actual part number becomes known, the correct approach is to change it - if you wish to keep the number you've created as an alternate, then that's fine (and everybody's happy) but not the other way around.
    CCC said:

    *BO uses the taxonomy after being denied permission to use the BL one.
    Which neatly illustrates what's wrong with having a proprietary system.
  • VorpalRyuVorpalRyu AustraliaMember Posts: 1,743
    TigerMoth said:

    VorpalRyu said:

    I agree, everyone has different standards, you included.
    But "accurate" only has one meaning.
    from dictionary.reference.com
    accurate [ak-yer-it] adjective
    1. free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact.
    2. careful or meticulous: an accurate typist.

    from merriam-webster.com
    Full Definition of ACCURATE
    1:  free from error especially as the result of care <an accurate diagnosis>
    2:  conforming exactly to truth or to a standard :  exact <providing accurate color>
    3:  able to give an accurate result <an accurate gauge>

    By the narrower definitions of accurate, even TLG would be getting it wrong... I have a #75030, which from straight out of the box, at least six parts aren't accurate as per TLG's inventory for that set.
    TigerMoth said:

    VorpalRyu said:

    As for needing a magnifying glass to read the numbers? I still have better than 20/20 vision & can read the numbers unaided, not everyone over 30 has failing eyesight...
    Maybe you can, but I wouldn't be so confident. I've seen a Technic panel (or rather, a matching pair) where the number is so small, a fraction of a millimetre, that I could only see that it WAS a number with a magnifying glass. Reading it was much harder.
    Just to prove a point a few years ago, a friend printed out an old story at 3-point, because his sister argued that his printer couldn't actually do so. She was proved wrong, but then claimed no-one could read it without a magnifying glass, so she felt she was still technically right, until I grabbed the paper & started reading it aloud...

    Its also likely that I have tetrachromacy, I used to annoy one of my friends who was in graphic design, I'd often point out she used slightly different shades when filling sections that were meant to be the same colour (talking differences like 255-127-33 vs 253-125-35).
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    TigerMoth said:

    CCC said:

    If they were to adopt the strict lego stance, then 4227655 and 4655372 are completely different ite and it all ms.
    We don't know why those two parts have different Design IDs - or many others. One day, that may change make sense. However, it is very difficult to decide that two parts "are the same" because it's subjective. You've already pointed out an issue with the different design of studs on heads - for some people it matters; for others it doesn't. If, the two parts above turn out to be made of different materials and one cracks and the other doesn't, then people will suddenly be very interested in the fact that they aren't the same. TLG make a decision in that regard - an informed one. Life gets complicated when someone else makes a different, uninformed one.

    They are the same part, according to lego. I know as I just had a phone call with them about ordering some. Internally they know they are linked. But they don't tell their customers that.

    TigerMoth said:

    CCC said:

    Would it have mattered if in the past they had no official number, so they had used an ID of hood01 or xxhg06 or something else unofficial. Would it matter if they kept that ID linked to the part if they were using the up-to-date publicly released code IDs?
    There are plenty of parts where, when the entry was created the number was unknown. You then have no choice but to invent one. The method chosen was to start it with a letter - which works because it's totally outside the system TLG use. So far, so good. However, when the actual part number becomes known, the correct approach is to change it - if you wish to keep the number you've created as an alternate, then that's fine (and everybody's happy) but not the other way around.


    What do you mean by correct though? Correct from which viewpoint?

    They had an incorrect number for the 1x1 plate, and they later added the correct one(s). They retain the old one as some people would have already been using that for their projects on BL. They have currently correct data and they keep the historic data (even if wrong) as that data was already in use for buying and selling on BL. It would be incorrect for the users of BL to just change the part number - which is why it is added, not changed. Remember BL is primarily a selling / buying tool, not a or historically accurate catalogue. Although it is often used as this, and is actually more correct and more complete than what lego offers online.

    Bricklink's inventories are (usually) correct at the time of listing or at least soon after they have been checked. However, some of them do not match what lego currently claim is in the set (as suggested by bricks and pieces). So are the BL inventories correct? They were correct at the time but now they are incorrect as lego says something different. Lego has changed the parts list, so one "correct" approach is to update it on BL. The other "correct" approach is to leave it exactly as it is, as it is a true record of the set as issued not a modified list that lego has changed to be able to offer replacements to customers. Correct is entirely dependent on viewpoint of what you want it to mean.

    Given that lego didn't list element IDs in instructions prior to about 2006 or so (I don't have any with me so I cannot check), I think the BL (and the other pre-BL) cataloguers did an excellent job of cataloging part IDs. Having no printed reference and having to read them off the parts is a tough job. I still find it difficult to read entire part numbers on smaller parts. I'm not surprised there were errors such as reading the number off a sprue and assigning it to a part. I haven't got any older 1x1 round tiles with me, but I just popped a modern one off a model and I cannot see a number on it. If I was confronted with assigning a number when there is no number on the part but it came on a sprue that has a number on it, then I'd have the choice of making up a random number or using the one printed on the sprue. I know what I would use.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    TigerMoth said:

    CCC said:

    *BO uses the taxonomy after being denied permission to use the BL one.
    Which neatly illustrates what's wrong with having a proprietary system.
    Which is also what lego has, and they chose not to release it for many years, either electronically or in the manuals. If they had done, there would be fewer errors in the BL catalogue.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343

    CCC said:
    TigerMoth said:

    CCC said:

    *BO uses the taxonomy after being denied permission to use the BL one.
    Which neatly illustrates what's wrong with having a proprietary system.
    Which is also what lego has, and they chose not to release it for many years, either electronically or in the manuals.
    It may surprise you, but we're talking about a proprietary product. It's called LEGO. Everything is LEGO-centric, or TLG-centric. If either go away, then discussion on the subject become rather pointless.

    My comment relates to having another proprietary system, reinventing the wheel. But you know that, so you can carry on arguing with yourself. I'll even let you have the last word - but I'll have the formatting:
    CCC said:

    If they had done, there would be fewer errors in the BL catalogue.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    Yes, there are part errors. Errors that mainly came about before Lego released element IDs. There are very few errors in recent / modern sets probably as it is easy to check against the parts list.

    Then there are colour errors, that mainly occur (these days) with metallic type colours and transparent colours, where consistency is not good.

    There were of course errors at the time of switch over from old greys and browns to new, but then there were many errors by Lego in that period, mixing up the two colour eras even within sets.

  • Lego_StarLego_Star ... in a galaxy far, far away.Member Posts: 1,311
    Perhaps traffic is increasing on the main site in anticipation ahead of a possible announcement, I keep getting this intermittently this evening....

    Service Temporarily Unavailable

    The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.


    Web Server at www.brickset.com


    I refresh and the page loads as normal.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,155
    Lego_Star said:
    Perhaps traffic is increasing on the main site in anticipation ahead of a possible announcement, I keep getting this intermittently this evening....

    Service Temporarily Unavailable

    The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
    Web Server at www.brickset.com


    I refresh and the page loads as normal.
    I was having this problem as well this morning. Haven't had it happen to me in a few hours, though (knock on wood).
  • Lego_StarLego_Star ... in a galaxy far, far away.Member Posts: 1,311
    ^ Just happened again in the last ten minutes or so, this time I had to refresh 4 times to get the main page.
  • aimlesspursuitsaimlesspursuits USMember Posts: 207
    I've seen this Service Temporarily Unavailable as well today.  I would go to the main page then search for a set, click on that set and see that page.  I would just hit refresh and it would be ok. 
  • LostInTranslationLostInTranslation UKMember Posts: 5,003
    @Huw I'm having problems with redirecting ads this morning.  Before I can even complete the sign-in form I have been redirected to some "mobi tips" site telling me I have won something.  
    Very frustrating and not sure what to do about it.  
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 5,669
    I'm using three different ad networks, Google and two others. I suspect it is one of the others that's serving 'malicious' ads so I've disabled that particular one. 

    If they are still appearing let me know.
  • LostInTranslationLostInTranslation UKMember Posts: 5,003
    Thanks Huw.  All good now. 
  • ricecakericecake Maryland, USAMember Posts: 694
    I just noticed that the page for #626-1 Green Baseplate is showing the picture for #626-2 Red Cross Helicopter.
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 5,669
    I was doing some maintenance last night including sorting out sets that had a different image filename to its set number. It's sorted now.
    ricecake
  • aslasl Paris, FranceMember Posts: 5
    Hello,

    It seems that after this weekend when all shop stocks seems to be at 0, the feature disappeared altogether, any chance to see it coming back ?

    Thanks !
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark UKMember Posts: 2,352
    Arghhh I'm trying to build a query on my mobile phone, and it simply isn't working! It doesn't recognise when I change the element, it doesn't allow me to add and or or, and it doesn't let me build the query! :(
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 5,669
    It doesn't surprise me...
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 5,669
    @asl, Lego removed the data from the product feed unfortunately...
  • aslasl Paris, FranceMember Posts: 5
    Holy crap :( This was a good thing ™ to know if we could wait a bit to buy something or not ;( Thanks Huw !
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 14,235
    It makes you wonder if they knew they had released it in the first place. It is a shame, it was useful to track sales volumes but I guess that all plays into resellers hands.
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 5,669
    edited November 2015
    Exactly. It wasn't until I asked the affiliate manager about using it that he was even aware it was there.

    It provided too much information which could be used for unintended purposes, hence it being removed.


  • tecjamtecjam Germany / SwitzerlandMember Posts: 255
    No biggie, but I think the query string in searches should be stripping the spaces (%20) at the beginning and the end of first / last words.

    At the moment it is being replaced with a '+' symbol, which does not actually give you any results for single terms. So if I search for '10221 ' ( <- with a space either in front of behind the set number or name) it does not give any results.

    http://brickset.com/search?query=10221+

    The '+' replacement should only be used if you have multiple terms which are seperated by a space. eg: 'star wars' would query 'star+wars', which works fine.


Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy