Retrieverfalcon

Great LEGO Sets Book and Set 11910

Recommended Posts

I have both the book "Great LEGO Sets" [set]5004906-1[/set] and the cooresponding mini build set [set]11910[/set]. The former's inventory includes the later as a set but says zero parts. If I add both to my set lists, it appears the mini build is added twice (according to the sidebar on that set's page as shown attached). What is the best way to add a set like this so that it is properly inventoried and the parts are only counted once for build actions?

9D00314C-D09F-41BB-8008-59F02167E50D.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Retrieverfalcon said:

I have both the book "Great LEGO Sets" [set]5004906-1[/set] and the cooresponding mini build set [set]11910[/set]. The former's inventory includes the later as a set but says zero parts. If I add both to my set lists, it appears the mini build is added twice (according to the sidebar on that set's page as shown attached). What is the best way to add a set like this so that it is properly inventoried and the parts are only counted once for build actions?

We are actually discussing this exact thing now. 

I favor removing the mini-build sets if they only exist with the book. I think having them separately is redundant. 

Another train of thought is that because Lego numbered the bags with the mini build parts they should be separate. Mainly to support sellers from sites like BL & BO because those sites list them separately.

We'd love to hear your thoughts. How would you like them inventoried. We want our site to be a easy to use as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't that mini build be a subset, so I think you guys should look at improving that feature. so it is presented in a good way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is value to listing the mini-builds as a distinct entry from the book itself. Like you said, it supports the shopping function. I also think there is value to identifying these as sub-sets to a book. But I think a few things need to happen to make this as complete as possible:

1. Include the book itself as a “part” or a “sub-Set” if the inventory is going to use the mini-build as a sub-Set.

2. Allow for the “sub-set” to be lost the same way a part can be lost. This would exclude all the sub-set’s parts from a user’s part collection and would cover cases where folks purchase either the book or the set separate from the other.

3. Display both in set lists (while only counting them once for part builds and the sidebar) or somehow indicate that one is a child of the other. This makes it easier to find things when reviewing your set list and supports collections where the book and parts might be stored separately  

4. Update how part counts are displayed on “sets” which are really “collections” - books and mini-builds or multi-set collections (be sure not to confuse these with very similar but unique sets like 41489) so the count isn’t misleading - the current entry for Great LEGO Sets says 0 parts but the mini-build is 102 parts.

5. Recognize users will add these type of items different ways - some will see a book’s ISBN before they see the parts set number (many DK books you only see the LEGO set number on the part bag - there is no indication of this number on the outside of the book anywhere). As such, be sure to cross-reference the two in the set details very clearly and provide a clear suggestion to either add or don’t add the second component depending on the solution that is reached to this issue  

There are numerous edge cases to consider:

1. In this case, the set is in a very clearly distinct box in a sleeve that also includes the book and is clearly numbered differently. That isn’t always the case. 

2. Some versions of the books came with or without the associated mini-builds. Should the database include these as two entries or one (and use the “lost” function I described above)? I favor the later. 

3. If there isn’t a LEGO number associated with a mini-build (most DK books have one, many Klutz books like “Chain Reactions” don’t), is a sub-Set created or are the parts inventories with the boom itself? I prefer the later for accuracy and then adding the book itself as a “part” which can be lost. 

4. How should the books that only include a mini figure be handled? This seems to dovetail with the ongoing discussions over minifigures as Sub-sets. 

5. What about the foil bags included with magazines? Are these the same as mini-builds with books? If so, they should be addressed the same way. 

Whatever solution we arrive at, I think the following are must-achieves:

1. Part counts for a given user’s collection are accurate - there can’t be a double counting like prompted my initial question. 

2. Flexibility exists to allow different users to catalog their collections in the ways that work for them

3. Be as consistent as possible with other solutions for the site. If we use sub-sets here, do the same for set collections. Consider distinguishing sub-sets from sub-assemblies. There feels like something different about this case and a single day’s build from an advent calendar but there is value to including both for the inventory/build values of the site to be exposed. 

4. Notify impacted users!! I know I just saw a similar request about inventory changes in general but I think this needs to be worked. Once someone adds their set to the site, they should be notified of any change impacting it. Otherwise, they have spent the time to catalog things only for them to have changed behind-the-scenes. This will lead to user annoyance and can be avoided with use of the notification system or email. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be sure, this is my personal opinion.

We currently have 256 books and 208 magazines in our catalog, and with the exception of a very few, all are stored the same way: we use a LEGO set number if it is available, otherwise we use the ISBN number; we show the cover image for books and the polybag or model for magazines; the parts are in the inventory and the book or magazine itself is not cataloged as a part.

That's what we've done with about 450 books/magazines. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do the same for the handful of books that currently have double entries, one for the book and one for the set.

Yes, it might be easier for some folks if we organize our set database the same way as Bricklink.

But Rebrickable is for builders and collectors, while Bricklink is for sellers and buyers. Our target audiences are different, and means we have to organize our database differently. We do not catalog different language version of magazines, or boxes, or instruction booklets; Bricklink does. Bricklink does not catalog sub-sets and b-models, we do. Bricklink sellers might offer individual bags from a single set. We do not divide our inventories into bags.
We link to Bricklink where ever we can, and hopefully, they link back to us. That should be enough.

In case of Great LEGO Sets, I would suggest one single set, set number 11910 -1, set name Great LEGO Sets, with the inventory of Micro-Scale Space Cruiser, and a reference to the ISBN of the book in the set notes. Then the parts count is correct. I can then add an additional image of the Cruiser to the set notes. If needed, we can add a link to the Bricklink entry of the book.

Books and magazines themselves are not LEGO parts, you can't build with them, and they should not have entries in our part database. As sets, no problem. As parts, let's not do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bricklink currently holds 4,437 books, 3,967 catalogs, and 898 magazines in at least seven different languages. Add a box for almost each set (15,124 sets) and an instruction leaflet for half of them (7,562). That means that Bricklink has, at least, 31,988 items that are not LEGO parts which you can use to build models or MOCs. That is about the same number as the actual LEGO parts we currently have.

We have 897 gear sets, about a hundred of which have actual inventories with parts, the remainder is simple a set reference with zero parts. Bricklink has 12,357 gear entries, including Greeting Cards, Bedding, Human Furniture and Smoking Supplies. Are we really going to add a IKEA LEGO bed to our parts database, because someone at Bricklink is selling it?

I think this is a very important discussion, and it boils down to the following question: do we want Rebrickable to become similar to Bricklink, focused specifically on sellers and buyers; or should Rebrickable remain a different kind of website, with a different target membership consisting of builders, moc designers and general LEGO fans.

Perhaps we should answer that question first and foremost, because everything else discussed within this thread, depends on the answer to that particular question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal answer to that would be that it should either have Lego parts or be a instruction on how to build or play with bricks. We can leave can leave the rest of the products out of Rebrickables catalog for now. Before we even think of those I would like to have a way to mark if I have the instruction for a set and/or box.

So from my opinion we could exclude watches, glued keychains without connections. and focus on what rebrickable core feature building stuff out of parts. ie there shouldn't be a need for a inventory with 0 parts except for the intermediate steps during the creation flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, biodreamer said:

ie there shouldn't be a need for a inventory with 0 parts except for the intermediate steps during the creation flow.

Super-packs/Value-packs will always have 0 parts unless something is put in place to total the number of parts in the sets, which, I feel, is probably more work than it's worth. And these should never be considered sub-sets as they were officially released as separate sets, not just what someone separated at some point like with these Books, or advent calendar days.

I tend to agree with Simon. The only added value to having parts listed separately is to link through to a BL listing for just the parts, but even then that value is quickly lost because the book listing on BL links to the parts listing they have so although the export data might not be direct a RB user can find what they want within 2 clicks.

And adding books as a part is a really bad idea. To be consistent what would happen if the set is just a book? Would we have to create a Set and a Part for it just so the set can have the book as a part?

The more people I talk to on RB it seems clearer to me what people use us for is collection management, then people figure out how powerful a website it is and they get into MOC building. Personally, I think the database should reflect those things before how it exports to selling sites. And having a system that duplicates parts in someones collection seems silly. I also only think we should list official Lego merchandise. Not licensed stuff, ever. But if someone wants to add their official Lego lunchbox then why not, if a user wants to put in the effort to add that kind of thing then I don't object, as long as it was released by Lego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Retrieverfalcon

Looking back I now realize Jared asked your opinion, which you expressed very well, and then I almost completely ignored you and went over your head to address the forum membership in general. That was rude and disrespectful, and I apologize for it.

In the case of Great LEGO Sets (and yeah, I also have that and love that book!), your suggestion makes perfect sense; just add the book as a part, and mark it missing if you don't have it.

My job as an admin, however, is to look at the big picture and try to calculate the overall impact of such detailed decision, if and when we want to be consistent. Empty sets (sets with zero parts) have no effect on the efficiency of the build functions, and they don't interfere with part searching, which accounts for a lot of our traffic. Adding books and key chains and IKEA furniture to our part database does interfere with build functions and part searching, so we have to think twice before we do that.

I agree completely that the part count in sets MUST be accurate. So in that sense your complaint is justified and we will solve it.

Take care,
Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my point of view set and subsets is the same thing. set are just usually at the top of hierarchy. from a system side it shouldn't really be a difference. Super packs should hold the sets and be viewed as subsets is in normal sets shows their subsets and the inventory should be the total part count in all sets. which the system should automatically be able to merge together and cache. The master inventory should always be equal or greater then the sum of the subsets parts.

So what differ is the naming system and the position in the hierarchy. making them different is only making the code and site more complex, the more you can reuse the better and the simplicity is what makes the whole subset feature so useful.

When dealing with books, there would however need to be someway to flag parts as not included in the set.

right now we have two types of inventories: inventory and spare parts, we would need to include a third type "not included" which contain parts from subsets that isn't included in the set but used in the instructions. ie parts you will have to buy elsewhere to build the set/subsets. This would be all parts in a Idea book and the parts needed to motorize a technic model for example.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sets have official instructions (we have links for that), reviews (link) and investing data (link); they can be bought as a complete set (links), and placed on a watch list. And you can see catalog entries on other website.

Sub-sets have... none of this. No other website has sub-sets or b-models.

Sets and sub-sets/b-models are NOT the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Simon said:

Sets have official instructions (we have links for that), reviews (link) and investing data (link); they can be bought as a complete set (links), and placed on a watch list. And you can see catalog entries on other website.

Sub-sets have... none of this. No other website has sub-sets or b-models.

Sets and sub-sets/b-models are NOT the same.

first of all subsets has the same instruction as the set and you could link to the same sources or leave them blank, I am talking on how you should build the system, Having them the same type of object would make things so much simpler, if the field is empty don't display that part of the GUI etc. an vola you can link a whole set tree no problem if you need to put subsets in subsets or sets in other sets it just works.

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