Why the delay in approving MF's created from sets?

Graham

I have sets parted out some time ago that I can't enter into inventory as I am waiting on (submitted) MF's created.

Surely MF's created can be put on the fast track?

Errors are unlikely and in the rare event they occur will be caught pretty quick anyway.

Surely (@Admin) you aren't double checking every one yourself?!

In the past I have parted out sets - submitted MF's then remove all un-created MF's from upload - time consuming and without notification of when(if) they have been "approved" I now have a good view unlisted MF's that I don't know what set they came from!

Thanks

Lawrence

Unfortunately it's down to how much time I have available. I have dealt with another batch of submissions just now. All submissions are manually checked, the error rate is above 50%, so it's incredibly important.

robernat

Creating minifigs is quite different to BL, and the way it is done is a tidy bit unpratical IMHO.
1. Creating one doesn't automaticly remove the parts from the inventory (logical), so when creating the next one the parts of the previous one are still there, so errors can occur.
2. When multiple of the same 'minifig subpart' is present one needs to remember to change the quantity to 1, so a warning before 'submitting' about this should be in place (twice the same item, are you sure? yes/ no)
3. When being in a set, and one wants to create a new fig there is no way of knowing wether that fig already exists in the database, in all honesty, I just check the BL database to find out and technicly that is wrong, one should be able to rely on the BO database if finding out was easier
4. We don't know wether someone has already submitted the figs of a certain set, a warning saying the set has already pending changes would help to avoid this (shouldn't be to complicated)
5. All parts are showing up in the overview when creating a fig, quite conmplicated when there are many lot's in the inventory, if only minifig related parts could be 'isolated' from the rest of the set somehow it would be a lot easier, but it would cause issues with clips plates (chima) not showing.
6. The submit button gives a clear call to doublecheck, but in a long list of lot's it's quite a burdon, it should be replaced by a 'verify' button that actually and ONLY shows what was selected (basicly showing just those items that would be the fig and how it would look like) this in a new tab page and only *then* the submit button.
7. On that same page (prior to submit) the option should exist to add extra details like size and weight, tags, other known ID's etc.
8. After creating a fig (after submit button) another page would need to open with the mention: does this fig appear in other sets at this point? No -> ok, Yes -> setnumbers please, the latter would auctomaticly add the same fig to other inventories so these changes would become pending as well.
9. When a fig is created (before final submit button) the combination should be verified in the database to check wether the exact same combination exists or not, warning the submittor it might already exists in another set (and show this fig in a new tab to verify)

I'm sure there are other things that could be helpfull to make it an easier process and I'm sure others have other thoughts about it as well.

I do like the fact creating figs is automated like this and it adjusts the inventory later on (allthough the timeframe should be shorter), it generates the 'composed' image for the fig so once it's 'in' it's 'in' and in the mean while nowone had to wait for the rest of the inventory, but the process should be faster and easier (with some of the tips above) IMHO

And there is also a need to 'tag' sets somehow who do not have minifigs yet and/or where there seems to be remaining subparts in inventories (heads / torsos / legs / headgear), that way contributors would know where to look and know what sets need to be dealt with in that regard.

Hopefully helpfull thoughts :-)

robernat

Forgot to mention:
Step 7bis also adding an image right away before the final submit button would be quite helpfull as well. I like to store my figs right away, having them hanging around untill they get a approved is not something I like, and it would allow for an easier doublecheck before they get sumitted (auto generated picture + real picture) and easier on approval as well I think.
So basicly an all in one shot: creating + submitting real picture and all other data would be really more practical ;-)

OvertheBrick

One thing that could greatly improve the process is if at least the creator of the MF had a way to visualize it and modify it after the facts. I would definitively had caught and fixed many mistakes.

Stragus

These are good suggestions, with some parts I'm less sure about (like points 5 and 8). For sure, the process could and probably should become a lot more fluid.

It's currently a multi-step process requiring admin approval at every step, with long delays... Since a month, I would like to create a missing minifig for set 79116 but the legs still aren't approved for creation:
http://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-big-rig-snow-getaway-set-79116#inventory

Lawrence, we know you don't have much time to manage the catalog and to create catalog administrator interfaces... So it might be a good idea to allow trusted individuals (like RobErNat) to submit certain changes with automatic and instant approval. There could be errors, but these can be fixed, I really don't think having an out-of-date catalog is preferable.

I believe automated approvals would be very easy to implement, please consider it.

robernat

@Stragus
It would be IMO a very bad idea to do automated approvals, remember 'humans' are entering the data, and that's bound to go wrong. Not an hour ago I entered the sizes of a knife in the database and realised when doublechekcing the order I picked the wrong knife, it's good I catched the error and send dimensions again or that submission would have been wrong (presumably for good as nowone would pay attention). Not so long ago I found dimensions in cm for a fig, so the database had 2.6x1.8x4 in stead of 26x18x40. Bummer: a buyer checked out on the fig in my store (flatrate cost), I vagely remembered submitting the sizes for that fig and when I asked Admin he confirmed: it was me... and Lawrence didn't catch it either (must be quite a task to stay concentrated all the time when looking at 'numbers'), imagine if the approvals where automated. Not to mention an outstander could abuse it and 'sabotage' it all. No, really not an option to automate that process, approvals need to remain a human action.

Oh and Alexis, please stop reffering to me each and every time things like this come up, I know that you know what I'm worthed catalog wise (and I do appreciate you think om me that way), and many others probably do as well, and Admin just as well, but there might be other members who might feel 'left out' when speaking of these things and quite frankly, *if* Admin would ever create catalog admin positions it would be better to have more persons involved, 1 for dimensions, 1 for tags, 1 for minifigs, 1 for pictures, 1 for approvals on inventory changes etc. There is IMO to much work for just a few persons and in all honesty, even if Admin would ask tomorrow, I'm not sure what kind of activity (= time spending) I could 'give' to the site as the past few months my store has grown a lot, I'm still renovating my Legoroom+storage (not much time due to so many orders between November and now) and therefor rarely time left at the end of the day.

I concur with you however (and people like the OP) and really hope Lawrence takes the step to get people involved as it would liberate some of his time to do other things, but if so, it really shouldn't be concentrated on 1 or 2 persons, and particulary not on me 'just' because I'm an avid contributor (and I have flaws just as well), I'm sure there are others who would be able (and like) to do certain tasks just as well ;-)

Stragus

It would be IMO a very bad idea to do automated approvals, remember 'humans' are entering the data, and that's bound to go wrong.

And errors can be corrected if necessary. I'm all for peer review (or admin review) but it's a very time consuming process! I assume catalog experts should produce good submissions on the whole, hence I believe they could bypass the review process for some submissions... Note that submissions can still be later verified (and corrected), even if they take effect immediately.

Not to mention an outstander could abuse it and 'sabotage' it all. No, really not an option to automate that process, approvals need to remain a human action.

That's not necessarily a huge issue. This would only be for trusted contributors, perhaps up to X submissions per day, even limited to low-risk submissions. There are ways to make this work.

Oh and Alexis, please stop reffering to me each and every time things like this come up [...]

Obviously, there are many other worthy contributors , you just generally seem more active in the community. Let's be fair, knowledgeable and dedicated people like you are big assets to BrickOwl.

I concur with you however (and people like the OP) and really hope Lawrence takes the step to get people involved as it would liberate some of his time to do other things, but if so, it really shouldn't be concentrated on 1 or 2 persons, and particulary not on me 'just' because I'm an avid contributor (and I have flaws just as well), I'm sure there are others who would be able (and like) to do certain tasks just as well ;-)

Well, I'm glad my kind of contribution doesn't require admin approval at every step, as that would be rather frustrating. (Still, for the upcoming BrickManager software, I *really* could use a new end-point to fetch images for a BOID-Color-Size, otherwise I'll have to cache a million URLs!)

Lawrence

Regarding auto approval, I thought it would be interesting to mention, I implemented this for myself right at the start, and quickly disabled it. I have probably about a 5% reject rate even on my own submissions.

Some sort of warning regarding quantities would certainly deal with a lot of the issues, I would like to implement that.

Graham

OK that explains somewhat - on that set in question I have resubmitted the figs that you rejected, however I don't know what was wrong before - as it's not detailed in the rejection - so yes that would be a 50% error rate on my submission alone, on that one set (70145)

I also wasn't aware that the constituent parts were not removed on approval of created figs - hence my next submission (and the note)

Also in that note I asked if you would be able to enable a "sort by" feature (in edit inventory view) ie. sort by color name, LEGO design ID etc

I agree with most of RobErNat suggestions - particularly a "item already submitted/pending approval"

I would gladly submit more mf pics - but to get it right (delete background in Photoshop etc) it takes time, which not knowing if a picture has already been submitted, I am reluctant to do.

There must be some quick fixes to simplyfy all this? At the moment as noted above the easiest way to create an MF is by looking at the other place

G

Ems Bricks

Items 4&6 of RobErNat's suggestions would be great. Point 4 is particularly important to save another users time. I have lost track of my pending submissions, whether they be minifig creations, images, etc. I may already have spent time submitting items that somebody already has pending.

Whilst I appreciate that Lawrence has his hands full with the site, Brick Owl is growing and more constraints will be put on admins time. The time involved between submitting and actual approval is unfortunately very long.