Is there a way to avoid this happening again...?

brickadoon

Hi everyone,

Just had an order placed in my store that included 4 of these:

https://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-black-brick-4-3-16-x-16-65803

Postage was automatically calculated as Large Letter, as 'technically' the volume of four of these are less than the maximum volume for a Large Letter.

However, in reality they won't fit in a Large Letter parcel as, side-by-side, they're slightly larger than the maximum size.

Thanks,

Rich - Brickadoon

Jay37

Do your packaging dimensions take this into account? Not that I have any to sell, but it looks like I could only sell two (assuming no other parts) which would be 12.8 x 25.6 x 1.4cm and well within the Royal Mail limits of 35.3 x 25 x 2.5cm for a Large Letter, but if I had more in any other configuration they would well exceed this. If my maths is correct, four in a line would be 51.2 x 12.8 x 1.4cm (so oversize), or four in a square would be 25.6 x 25.6 x 1.4cm. Neither take into account packaging, so would definitely breach the RM limits if this was also included.

brickadoon

Hi @Jay37 ,

I thought my packaging dimensions would take this into account too. For Large Letter I have:

348mm x 245mm x 20mm
Up to 725g

I've just tried buying these from my own store, and it will let me buy 5 at the Large Letter rate! If I buy 6 it will change to Small Parcel.

I've attached a photo of the largest box I use for Large Letter - as you can see there's no way I can get more than two in there

Rich

Jay37

The part dimensions look correct and a cross reference with BL suggests there's no issue with the weight. I'm stumped! Either it's a glitch in the Matrix or I bet someone will come along and point out something glaringly obvious that we've both missed.

brickadoon

@Lawrence are you able to help on this one - we're a bit stumped?

Hoddie

The algorithm must calculate by volume only rather than take the size of individual pieces into account. So they technically fit by volume but not by size. I always assumed there was a kind of Tetris game going on behind the scenes, but maybe it's not that at all. That would suggest the same problem might occur when orders contain more than one set also.

Lawrence

The system does do a best effort calculation, it's not perfect, but it does work surprisingly well. We recommend stores make adjustments to the limits. The form mentions "If the shipping method has any dimension restrictions, you can make sure this shipping method is only used when the order items will fit within the dimensions. Do not enter the exact dimensions given by your postal provider, we suggest you leave a sufficient margin to account for packaging or any inaccuracies in the measurements used"

You mentioned your dimensions are 348mm x 245mm x 20mm which is likely to cause issues as the system doesn't know how items are packed, so that would be too tight for the large letter size of 353mm x 250mm x 25mm. You can adjust those down until you see that it clears the issue with this particular item

Vosblokjes

@Lawrence
Packing 4 of the 65803 can only be done in a few ways, only 2 of them make sense and none should fit.
Stacking 2 of them and then 2 stacks side by side, that would give a total dimension of 256x128x28, so that would be to thick (8mm).
Or all 4 in a square, 256x256x14, so to wide (11mm)

My letter (NL) shipping is set to 230x150x25, which is already quite small, PostNL states it could be 324x229x32 (outside), I already trimmed it down a lot because of earlier issues. So in reality it would fit, but according to my setting it shouldn't.
BO let's me put 2 of them in there. So either 256x128x14 or 128x128x28, both of those would cross the limit.
Adding a third one doesn't fit according to BO, it goes to buspakje 250x190x28, and that should not be possible as well. In thickness it is possible to stack 2, but not 2 side by side.

Only at 5 items it goes to parcel.

So, in my case, it should be possible in reality, according to my shipping settings, it should not.
So although BO does work great with many things, this is something strange that should not have to be fixed with adjusting shipping dimensions. That has already be done, shipping calculations doesn't respect them

@brickadoon
Maybe it will fit when putting 2 on top of each other while the studs are facing each other so the studs can go side by side, that way they are less thick than 28 and maybe just fit.

Vosblokjes

I did some testing
For only 1 item the minimum is 148x148x15, any lower on any of them will not get this shipping test. So BO takes a large margin (20mm on either side)

For 2 there are a few options that work according to BO, when I took 1 mm of these dimensions (on 1 side) the option wasn't given in my cart.

296x148x15 this takes even more margin (40 and 20mm)
148x148x30 yes, 2 stacked fit inside the 30mm (2mm to spare)

222x148x20 this should not be possible (1)
212x129x24 this should not be possible (2)
204x129x25 this should not be possible (3)
(1) stacking is not an option, even if so, BO will not go with 220x148x20, so it's not stacking the items, but without stacking, it is (at least) 42mm over the shipping limit
(2) same goes here
(3) stacking could become an option (studs towards each other hence not needing double the height), but then it should be possible to go under the 204 and it's not

So however BO is calculating, it is doing something strange and that can't/shouldn't be corrected with the shipping dimensions.

brickadoon

Hi @BasKrie

Thanks for looking at the different sizing options - it's good to see I haven't missed anything!

Your letter sizes in NL are different to ours in the UK. We have a maximum Large Letter size of 353x250x25, so there's even less scope for making those parts fit.

Rich

Bricks-Shop

Hey,
we have also some of these technical issues with our own database when it calculates our stock places and our package dimensions. I think Brick Owl calculation works the same way. If you take the area of your package (35.3x25cm=882cm²) and the footprint of the four items (4x 12.8x12.8=655cm²) it should fit from view of mathmatic calculations. That means calculation is OK.

We have not yet found any way of calculation to avoid this. This would be very complicated to consider also into the "area calculation" the length/width of the items. If you have only one item like the for bricks, it seems to be easy. But if you have multiple items, the software has to calculate a maximum of scenarios how the items could fit. But then it's again another problem. The software calculates that you place all items to each other without any space between.

In my opinion this case shows the limit of programmers, software calculations and the human precision work.

As I said before, we can see these issues also from time to time that the calculated shipping box is to small for the items which should fit in it. It's a small risk and we loose some cents for a bigger shipping box.

Have a great weekend,
Oliver.

Vosblokjes

And some people say that computers are smarter than humans

I get that it's not easy to program something like this. Indeed with only 2 items it should be doable, but with 10 (different) items there are a lot of ways to pack.
But there should be a way to incorporate something for larger items.

If it were only a few cents I would agree that it can happen, but when a US buyer buys 3 of these it is presented with a letter option, costing €5.75, while it has to be a parcel for € 17.45, so a €11.70 difference. That's not just a few cents
And in such a case I would either get the difference from the buyer or cancel the order.

bricksinbins

The problem is clearly with BrickOwl's algorithm here, not shipping dimensions. They should fix it. If BO lets something like this through with an order, I would have to cancel the order.

NoahsBandP

I know its not a fix but I think you can select force a quote for the item in your inventory, that way it won't allow the customer to autocheckout without you confirming first and only affects the items you choose to force meaning most customers orders won't be affected.