seejay

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

seejay last won the day on April 12

seejay had the most liked content!

About seejay

  • Rank
    Level 2 Stud

Recent Profile Visitors

370 profile views
  1. Minor bug: when clicking on a partlist in the change log, the URL points to the setlist path, and returns 404. See screen cap. The "Cement Truck" list is a Part list.
  2. When I look at the full change log with no filters (no text search, what = any, action = any), I get 40 pages of results that goes back to Sept 14 2019. However I filter by action (add, delete, change), I get results going back to August 9 2019 (which is about the time Nathan announced the feature, so i assume that's as far back as it is available). I know the feature is limited to 6 months of history, but it seems I can't get all the way back when looking at the full results. A related question: are the action = add|delete|change filters mutually exclusive and comprehensive of all available change log results? I really like the change log feature. I've used it a few times to undo mistakes or figure out why a part count doesn't match what i would expect. For me, who spends a bit of (happy) time managing my Lego collection each week, it's totally worth the cost of the pro plan to have this. Thanks!
  3. Thanks @TobyMac. I tried again but get the same two part conversions (hoses --> homemaker containers). I just added a comment above with another test that I did yesterday that might help @Nathan understand what's happening.
  4. Another test that sheds some light on what might be happening: In the original model, the ribbed hoses were bent using Studio's flexible parts tool. When I made a test with those parts before flexing them (just added to the model), it worked as expected. After flexing, I got the same error: Part copy not found (need Quantity 2 Color 179) So it seems to be something with the flexed parts (which are relatively new in Studio, I think).
  5. Another test that sheds some light on what might be happening: In the original model, the ribbed hoses were bent using Studio's flexible parts tool. When I made a test with those parts before flexing them (just added to the model), it worked as expected. After flexing, I got the same error: Part copy not found (need Quantity 2 Color 179) So it seems to be something with the flexed parts (which are relatively new in Studio, I think).
  6. When have a .io file with over 1000 parts including: 78c11 (ribbed hose, 11L) 78c14 (ribbed hose, 14L) When I import the file to a new custom list, there are no errors or warnings about those parts. However, those 2 parts are missing from the resulting inventory, and 2 parts not included in the .io model are added to the inventory: 2 (homemaker cupboard) 3 (homemaker drawer) I made a few other tests to explore the problem: I made a version of the .io with no submodels and imported it. The resulting inventory is missing the hoses and does not have the homemaker parts. I do get an error on this import: Part copy not found (need Quantity 2 Color 179) Color 179 (flat silver) is the color of the missing hoses. I made a .io with only the hoses and imported it. The resulting inventory is correct. I made a .io with all parts except the hoses and imported it. The inventory was correct (no hoses, but also no homemaker parts) Given the error I get when importing the version of the .io with no submodels (test #1 above). I'm guessing there's just some strangeness in the .io that maybe rebrickable's import shouldn't try to deal with. However, it's probably worth looking into why it didn't throw an error when those parts were in the submodel and instead replaced them with the homemaker parts. I'm happy to share the .io with you bilaterally for testing. Thanks, cj
  7. seejay

    Confused New Collector

    Thanks for that. It makes sense that the 6 months average prices would be just as slow for RB to pull as it is for me. But if the RB "total value" figure could be calculated on the *used* for sale prices instead of new (or if that was an option the user could set), I think it would make that figure a more interesting for most part collectors.
  8. seejay

    Confused New Collector

    It would be great if the total value was based on used prices instead of new (or if that were an option the user could control). I have a script that will go fetch all the 6-months average used prices for my parts lists and calculate a more realistic value, but it's slow to run and i'd love for RB to do that for me. Also, well done on excluding the outliers. I really wonder about the business model of some of those stores . . .
  9. When I import the attached inventory, I get color errors which don't seem to be "real" errors. When I manually edit the colors, Rebrickable accepts them (i.e. the part/color combination must exist in an inventory on RB somewhere). I think the color IDs shown here are LDraw color IDs. 326 is Yellowish Green and 10001 is Glow in Dark White, and these are the two parts that get "unknown color" in the resulting inventory. But as I said, when I manually edit the colors, Rebrickable accepts them. color_chart.io
  10. On the MOC Analytics page (which is great, by the way; it's fun to check those numbers from time to time), the table which lists all MOCs with their views, downloads and likes has small up and down arrows to change the sorting of the rows, however for me, none of them result in an ascending or descending sort. The buttons do something: the sort order changes, and the order is consistent if I change back and forth using different buttons, but it's not ascending or descending (or alphabetical).
  11. Hi Hannah, I think there a couple of things to think about. If you just want to get rid of as much of it as quickly as possible and are less concerned about maximizing the value, something like ebay is your best option. However, even in that case, I think spending some time researching prices on Bricklink would help you know what prices to aim for. The secondary lego market is very active these days. Even if you took the average current price for each set on Bricklink and added it all together as a single price to sell all of it, I bet you'd find a buyer. If not, knock 5 or 10 percent off that price and for sure someone will snap it up. If you want to maximize the value and don't mind spending more time managing the inventory, packing, and shipping, you could set up a Bricklink (or BrickOwl) store and put everything you want to sell up there. You'd probably be selling them a few at a time. That involves building an inventory of the sets and keeping that inventory updated as you sell them off. In all cases, you'll need to distinguish between the different states (sealed box, built and rebagged, etc) in order to figure out the right price. This article talks about an average increase in the value of lego sets of 12% per year since 2000, so I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised by the value of what you have. Good luck! --cj
  12. Sirjective1, I agree with you. I'm using the new links on the "my parts" tab to effectively move parts from one list to another but it is error prone and requires some mental juggling as you note. That new feature is definitely an improvement (thanks Nathan!) over the workflow I described in the initial post of this thread, but still a bit awkward, and slow if working on a bunch of parts. My solution (for when I want to move more than a couple of parts) has been to enter my desired changes in a spreadsheet (list name, part number, color, and change in quantity for each change I want to make) and use a python script to make the changes via the RB API. Hacky, but it works, and basically does what you are suggesting with your CSV solution. I'd be happy to see something in the interface that makes these kinds of moves easier.
  13. Thanks Vokhev. That makes me feel better about my powers of observation. And it's a fairly tidy solution to the problem. And thanks to Nathan and team for implementing them. --cj
  14. I think you can close this suggestion. I'm not sure if the function was there when I made this ticket or not (most likely it was and I had just not seen it), but it is now possible to go from the "my parts" tab in the pop up dialog on a search result and click on the part count for a particular color. That re-opens the pop up for the specific color clicked and there is an "edit this part" tab available. It seems like one more click than absolutely necessary, but it lets me do the workflow described in the initial post above.
  15. seejay

    MOC Tags

    Jared, I feel your pain. I'm deep in the weeds of tag wrangling for our site (which has nothing to do with Lego). I've reviewed all the tags manually to map them to a smaller set of standard tags, a painstaking, iterative process (just when I think I've got some logic to guide how to map the tags, an edge-case comes along and blows up the whole thing). Next we're planning to lock down the tag vocabulary and add a "suggest a tag" feature to allow users to point out any gaps in the vocabulary. We're also working to have the system recommend tags to contributors based on the title and descriptions they enter. That will be based on a machine-learning model trained on our the standardized tags. Not sure how well that's going to work, but I'm hopeful that in a couple more months our tags will be a lot more useful. Everything we do is open source, so if we get something that seems like it might be useful for RB, I'll link to it here, and we blog about our work at the Centre for Humanitarian Data. So, if you get bored after cleaning up all those minifig part numbers . . . :) --cj