• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jaredhinton

  1. jaredhinton

    Gold color question

    The difference in these images are 15573 is the official LEGO Element ID image, and 3794a is the LDraw rendered image of the part because LEGO don’t provide a EID image for it.
  2. Fixed, thanks. It’s unusual to get part 92946 in modern sets so I have changed the part, but if 92946 get verified in this set a second inventory will be created.
  3. I haven’t sorted it yet. I’ll let you know when I do. Please submit the photo to 43337. You can submit in any color, doesn’t have to be on the list for that part.
  4. jaredhinton

    MOC Tags

    Speaking as a User, not an Admin (statements made here are my opinion not policy). I'd really appreciate it if more care could be taken when tagging MOCs. I use tags to find things I'd like to build but it gets very hard when designers go crazy and tag things with unique tags or spelling errors. If you tag your MOC and it's the only instance of that tag (the number next to it says 1) then one of three things: You may have spelt it wrong, spelling is not my strong suit so I'm pointing no fingers, but if it's a common term and you're the 1st then double check your spelling. You may have used a less common term for it, for example "The Simpsons" vs "Simpsons". Ignoring the argument about which is correct you should be aiming to get the same one the majority of users have used, otherwise your MOC won't appear when someone searches using the opposite one that you used. Having multiple terms for the same thing makes it harder to find them all and hurts your chances of being found. Your tag is probably useless. If it's something so obscure then a user will probably never look for it anyway making the tag moot. For general searches the system checks all info anyway so if that term appears in MOC name or description then a general search will find it, no need for a single use Tag. At this point, with something like 15k MOC's any useful tags have almost certainly already been used. If your tag isn't useful then I question why you use it. I just want to be able to find your awesome MOC's, please help me.
  5. Bricklinks the same. They don’t distinguish the difference. Well for now I’ll add it to a dummy set (to lose the color error) if you could please submit a picture of it as proof it exists that would be great, thanks.
  6. Do you know what set it came in? Variations like this are rarely made clear by Lego so we rely upon the community to find them. This will be an example of it being wrong in a set somewhere. Or sometimes parts are found in Lego stores which never appear in a set, could be an example of that. Either way with more info we can fix this color error.
  7. jaredhinton

    Gold color question

    To me A looks like pearl gold and B metallic gold. Could be brass which we don’t list. There’s questions to whether it exists, some claim it appears in a couple of sets. essentially it appears in some sets where they should be chrome gold and people say they’re different from pearl gold. But I’m not sure how verified this all is.
  8. Please read this post from a few weeks ago. It’s should answer all your questions. https://rebrickable.com/forum/index.php?/topic/3241-minifig-lower-body-category/ Also we call them part numbers, not ID’s. IDs refers to either the Design ID, or Element ID, which are both LEGO terms. Thanks, Jared
  9. I don’t know. MOC designers tag their own submissions, so they can choose.
  10. If certain scales become more common, or are common, using the tagging system is far more effective than MOC name to group them together.
  11. Hi benjib, Our forum moderator is currently away while he recovers from being ill. As soon as he is able to he will address your issue. Sorry for the wait. Jared
  12. Hi Everyone, As I'm sure you've all noticed, I have been doing a lot of work on the minifig categories over the past year-ish(?) I have left the two hardest categories last for obvious reasons, Minifig Upper Body will be started shortly (hopefully). The lower body category actually hasn't been too bad (Heads was way harder!) The most challenging thing was to bring the numbering standards back in line with how they were originally set up on this site but over the last 3-4 years have been ignored. This had affected different colored legs and the newer Multi-color injected legs. I have adjusted a lot of parts to correctly reflect their: a) Assembly numbering standard, b) Pattern numbering standard, and c) Print numbering standard. So for example if a part has Black hips on a different colored upper leg (the parts color in its set) and Yellow 'Boots' (multi-color injection) it has the number 21019(part number for multi-color injections)x026(Assembly number for Black Hips)pat02(Pattern number for Yellow Boots on Black Hips) 21019x026pat02. It's simpler for hips that have the same color as the part, so for Same colored Hips and Upper Legs the number is 21019c00, add the relevant pattern number for lower legs (Boots), eg Light Bluish Gray is pat021, so it becomes 21019c00pat021. These numbers aren't new to the site. I created nothing, I'm just implementing what we already had started but failed to continue. Now that's clear as mud here's the reason for my post. Lego EID images are not very clear when looking at the MCI parts. Some I was able to tell from photos that have been submitted, some I was able to check my personal collection for. Some are my best educated guess, If I wasn't sure I left it as it was. This means I may have missed some, or even changed some incorrectly. I need your help to determine any errors that I may have made. And to submit rear images of the MCI parts so it's clear to users that those parts aren't just prints but are different patterns of Legs. Take a look at the categories and let me know what you think. (please be kind, it's been a lot of hours work, haha) Thanks, Jared
  13. Works fine for me. It finds my 15391’s no problem. Have you got that part list (Stufi) checked to be used in build calcs too?
  14. What are your other build calc settings? If you have exclude minifig parts, or prints, or non-LEGO (tools and stickers) they all may have an effect on the %. Another thing to try may be to remove and re-add the set to the list.
  15. Have you got set list you add it to checked to include those sets in build calcs?
  16. Yeah, the odd colored legs often have the LEGO designation ‘MULTI’ which is never useful. Luckily, like you said, that are rare so it’s not a huge issue.
  17. Your are correct. And it is a huge complication and makes it almost impossible to map them. But unfortunately the problem is with BL not us. We follow Legos designations which color them our way. And we always favor being as true to LEGO as possible since they’re the official source.
  18. A catalog image counts as an image. That text only appears when we have zero image for a set. But we are always eager to improve images. Especially for older sets. You need to upload the image to bricksafe. Then go to the set in question, click Submit Change Request button on the lower right (scroll down a bit). Paste the link to the image in the CR. Hope that helps. thanks
  19. Please ignore Minifig lower and upper categories for now. They are the last two I still need to work through after the massive Minifig overhaul we started a while ago when we separated everything. There will be literally hundreds with errors. Otherwise CRs will be great. Just be conscience of print vs pattern relations. Patterned parts do not get filtered out and some may look like prints but are not. Thanks
  20. Can you give one example please and we can let you know if you’re on the right track. Then CRs would be the way forward.
  21. Another tweak that might be good is to somehow exclude parts marked lost. I have several (alot of sticker sheets) that I have said I've lost but still appears on that list as they are in a set I own. Don't know how easy that would be or if it would be worth it but I'd thought I'd raise it.
  22. We're working on improving the help pages. Thanks for the feedback.