jantjeuh

Should There Be Different Inventories For Different Set Revisions?

Recommended Posts

In the past, there have been a number of sets (9398 and 8043 come to mind) of which multiple versions have been released. For instance, the first version of 9398 had 30 x 6536, while the set revision had 28 x 6536 and 2 x 44809. Apparently, only the inventory of the latest version is used/shown on Rebrickable. Obviously, this may lead to an inaccurate parts inventory for users who don't necessarily own the latest revisions (though, this should differ only by a few elements). One way to fix this would be to use 9398-1, 9398-2, etc., for the revisions, but this might result in a lot of duplication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be several set entries, both when it comes to feature differences when it comes to molds or if the set has been changed, or if it's a supplyment that exist in many colours. duplications is better then losing information.

 

This is important on the really old sets which share set ID.

 

The only case when there shouldn't be a need for a duplication is when the mold change is minor, such as 4085a,b,c,d. Because there is way to many sets that has been existing over minor mold changes like this. Having duplication would be extreme, especially since, sometimes a set can be mixed with some of a and some of b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lego have no records of mould changes either, making tracking them hugely difficult, if not impossible. It will never be possible to be fully accurate. They've even supplied a mix of old and new moulds in a single set many times. They do however have a new mould number and ElementID for the new jumper, so maybe they'll get better :)

 

Having said that we want as accurate a set as possible, the whole ethos of Rebrickable is re-use of your parts, the more accurate the set, the more accurate your parts. As Biodreamer has said there has to be a limit on how far you split sets up. I try and keep the latest versions of sets up, as any set that gets revised is usually the first production run, and chances are most users will not have a very early set.

Where this is not the case, as for 9398, yes, this is something I want to sort out. Probably not with a -2, or -3 suffix as I prefer that for subsets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try and keep the latest versions of sets up, as any set that gets revised is usually the first production run, and chances are most users will not have a very early set.

 

 

True but that would make some molds absolite without any sets attached to them, it's better to keep the earliest version of the mold, that way it's easier to spot the mold change dates. sets has a obvious release date, it much much harder to know when they stop producing them.

 

So keeping the latest isn't a good option imo, the version some one get the hand of is very time dependent, if it's  directly from a regular store that is only true for a few years while the catalog spans over 60 years. so when you find sets by other means there is nothing that say that you got it from the early or late production chain. I would say it's equal odds.

 

so putting in a rule just because 'now' has a diffrent statistical diffrence doesn't make sense in the long run. it more likely to disturb the inventories making them incorrect. besides you save work by keeping them unchanged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where this is not the case, as for 9398, yes, this is something I want to sort out. Probably not with a -2, or -3 suffix as I prefer that for subsets.

It could be classified as 9398v2 meaning version 2 of the same set number.  If you are using -2 for sub-sets, what about the sets that LEGO assigned the same number having a -2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pet peeve with set revisions is Rebrickable telling me I don't have enough of the new style 16T clutch gear, but I have them from the latest four Technic flagships. 8880 is another example, one part comes in a pin hole and an axle hole version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pet peeve with set revisions is Rebrickable telling me I don't have enough of the new style 16T clutch gear, but I have them from the latest four Technic flagships. 8880 is another example, one part comes in a pin hole and an axle hole version.

The new v2 code will handle this fine, as long as there is a defined relationship between the different molds of a particular part.

 

As for handling different versions of sets, I'm loathe to create some complicated solution that in reality makes very little difference to most people. Right now, for those who are super keen on having a 100% perfect record of parts you can combine the Lost Parts and My Parts features to achieve it. Perhaps I can do something that uses this behind the scenes... later ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new v2 code will handle this fine, as long as there is a defined relationship between the different molds of a particular part.

 

As for handling different versions of sets, I'm loathe to create some complicated solution that in reality makes very little difference to most people. Right now, for those who are super keen on having a 100% perfect record of parts you can combine the Lost Parts and My Parts features to achieve it. Perhaps I can do something that uses this behind the scenes... later ;)

Silly me, didn't even think of using lost parts for that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now