BrickLink announces removal of part variants

Such a brainless decision. BrickLink is THE place to find nitty-gritty information on these part differences.

I think they could keep the variants and create a new feature in the website to identify them as optional to each order. In this way, someone who searches an old part can see a list of equivalent parts, and sellers can keep the control of all the different variants.

Awful. Whenever I restore old sets, I need to know part variants to get an as genuine as possible result.

I would like to be able to make the distinction myself. In cases where I don't care about variations, I just want the cheapest part. But like you said, when completing an older set I really want to be able to choose a specific variation.

So why not both :)

Why? They are primarily going to affect the most meticulous collectors. In other words, people who care the most about their product. What will this bring for TLG? The information was collected by volunteers anyway

Is this information mirrored up somewhere, sets with correct part variants?

I do care about the correct variant from time to time

It's absolutely a negative! While I understand, that looking for every minor detail in a piece can be a lot of work as a seller, there already is a way around deleting everything.
"Piece of undetermined type" is already a thing and could be used for this. Sellers and customers could opt in or out of the specificity by simply listing items as/ putting items into wishlists as "the specific type" or "undetermined type". This could be solved with a drop down menu while listing items/ adding items to wishlists.
I also think it's a negative, because Bricklink is a great Ressource, when it comes too looking where every specific kind of piece was used. We will loose a great deal of info about all the pieces, by lumping everything together.

Well, that's a dumb decision...

Really bad idea. Just because some Bricklink admin thinks a variant is not important doesn't mean there aren't users out there who think it is. All that information was collected for a reason...
The proper solution is to do this in the UI, not by destroying your historical data set.

Vented studs are no longer going to be identified on minifigure heads and that is not okay.

A bad idea for all the obvious reasons. It's not causing a problem, so why change it?

Yep, utterly dumb nonsense...

Typical case of corporate idiocy...

moronic decision. at least they're not merging the 1x2 jumper plate variants.

I've used bricklink for the past 10 years and it's been an immense help in, not just a marketplace, but also a reference for thousands of sets and the parts for those sets. It would be a damn shame to have the bricklink admins wipe away all of that information, that countless users have contributed to over the years. They've been very good about maintaining and protecting the site and its users. I hope they will also listen to us and understand what is at stake here

Thanks for picking up the story, CapnRex101! It's great to see the greater LEGO community take part in this discussion!

To add to my previous post, I recently bought old police and fire stations, 381-2 and 6382 . When I met the guy for the transaction he took a pride in explaining that all parts are period originals, no substitutions with modern variants. I didn’t necessarily care, but it was very nice! And needless to say I’m making sure to not mix them with other sets. How will we be able to restore sets this way?

I thought Bricklink got taken over by The Lego Group, not Australian politicians.

This is terrible. When looking for pieces in my collection I like to know the differences as sometimes you want a specific type, or especially when using Studio if I'm buying direct from Lego the last thing I want is to accidentally use some old or rare piece when it is the widely available contemporary piece I want.

I've already spoke about this in yesterday's RPotD so I'll try to keep this brief:

Terrible decision. Bricklink's reasoning seems to be that they are already not focussed on cataloging every specific part variant; they've always only cared about what's a useful distinction. And new sellers find it a hassle.

As both a buyer, a seller and a buyer of parts needed to recomplete sets, I must say that this is a bad move.
These changes will make it difficult to impossible to ascertain which version came from which year of sets. And it will make it a lot more of a hassle to find and buy those versions of parts as seller notes don't work on wanted lists.

Just because the catalog is not perfect they shouldn't make it even more imperfect!

Bricklink as a catalog is being simplified. Even when pretty much anyone you could ask would go to Bricklink for use AS a catalog.

I sincerely hope they're reconsidering taking this step, but February 2nd is fast approaching. All we can do is let the admins know that there even IS a group that wants to use the features that are about to be removed. But frustratingly, Bricklink is no longer a fan website, so it's anyone's guess if they'll even want to listen.

Agree with all comments above. This is a slap in the face of vintage collectors like myself. I hope all of our comments will result in abandoning this plan!

This feels like TLG meddling, and it's exactly the kind of thing that I worried about back when they bought it.

A classic case of a corporation not understanding or not caring about the users who actually drove the formation of the service in the first place. I suspect this is an attempt to make bricklink more accessible to the casual fan who doesn't care about small deviations, but it's going to upset a lot of people who actually use bricklink already.

Some committee somewhere has presumably decided that the potential new market is worth more than the old one, and that the new sellers who can be lazy about parts will bring in more money too.

What next? Merging old and new grey?

This is a very poor decision on the part of Bricklink/TLG. As a collector of old school vintage LEGO parts and sets (mainly from the '90s and '80s), this is only going to cause issues for myself and those like me that wish to collect period accurate parts. I understand that many parts are similar in nature to the casual viewer, but these parts are different for a reason. Not all are exactly interchangeable with each other, and some have very important differences in regards to how they connect to other parts.

Very negative change for sure. This is really terrible step.

@DFX said:
"I think they could keep the variants and create a new feature in the website to identify them as optional to each order. In this way, someone who searches an old part can see a list of equivalent parts, and sellers can keep the control of all the different variants."

That would definitely be the best option imho. Some work to be done, but TLG should be able to afford that. All for the fans, only the best is good enough!

Removing "with grooves" from tiles is concerning.
I have found the grooveless variety to be rather difficult to disassemble when attached to other parts at times, the groove was added for a reason!

@bnic99 said:
"Removing "with grooves" from tiles is concerning.
I have found the grooveless variety to be rather difficult to disassemble when attached to other parts at times, the groove was added for a reason!"

They will only remove the "with grooves" from the title, not the whole entry.

Absolutely idiotic decision.

I feel like this is a terrible idea. The information is already there, to help collectors find very specific pieces if required, so why remove it?

Plenty of sellers put notes on the splash pages to say they don't check for specific part variants, so it's not even like this was causing a big inconvenience for sellers. And buyers can always contact sellers to verify they are getting a specific part variant before they order.

I can only hope that a place like BrickOwl is able to preserve this information. They may be seeing more trade in the future.

First of all, Bricklink is an 'it', not a 'they'. As a professional reporter, the person who wrote this article should know this.

Secondly, Bricklink made avilable a list of parts where sellers could maintain a distinction between part variants, provided they (the sellers) describe the parts on sale as so:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629

This will help buyers choose their parts with the same level of detail that these buyers currently use to choose their parts now.

This wasn't listed within the Brickset article, so affected sellers should check their sources (as sent by Brcklink via email) before the changeover date, which is February 15th, not February 1st, as reported here.

Corpoheads messing up with bricklink as usual. Stupidest decision they have made so far.

As everyone said. It is bad decision. I'm a seller and occasionally a buyer. If I don't care about a specific mold then I just don't care, I'll buy what is cheaper. But sometimes I need that certain variant and now it'll be even harder to find it. What next? Jumpers? Cones or hinges w/wo groove?

Im spending huge amount of my time to catalogue used parts correctly, some buyers care, some don't. But for those who care I find this change horrible.

I thought this was a terrible decision when I read the article, but then I went to the list of what they're removing and it seems to only be stuff with really minor differences, so that's not too bad. It's not like they're removing different types of clips

Why?

This doesn’t make buying bricks more convenient. It just makes the user waste more time trying to find the specific thing they want.

People who buy from BrickLink have likely gotten used to the process by now. Don’t change it if it’s not broken.

@MisterBrickster said:
"
What next? Merging old and new grey?"

Don't give them ideas.

What can we do to express ourselves to TLG regarding this? What about calling the company to express that this is a very bad, terrible idea? I’d like to do something more active that might actually effect a change in this decision… one call from me might not matter, but how about a lot of calls?

Bad decision. Very bad.
The worst part of it is to loose the information about what variant is related to a specific set.
The resull will be that the bouyer will not be aware that he need a specific part to complete some old set. The lost of this information will prevent to be able to search the correct part.

The first help page was posted to discuss it on the forum 2 weeks ago, after it the new list more detailed was published and the date moved forward.

Here is a summary of the important information posted by Admin Russell:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450622

This is a bad idea. I have used Bricklink and Brickset for part identification on older sets found in yard sales for years now. It is so nice to type in the item number and pull up a list of sets that brick came in and then be able to narrow it down by printed or stickered parts.

Kind of strange, but LEGO themselves have part variants in production at the same time, I've seen it with 2x2 inverted slopes, some have a [ 0 ] connector, and others a [ - ] shaped connector in the same set, with different colors.

I see the list of parts does not really affect drastic variants like thin / thick / U or O clips and such, so it's only a limited change.

Click hinges are probably the most affected by this change, as the number of Teeth is different.

While we may still find such part variant information on sites like rebrickable, I absolutely need the distinction when buying replacement parts for older sets to ensure I don't just get the newest elements currently in production. Also, it's pretty dumb that Bricklink does not distinguish between TLG's own part mold variations, which would be easy enough if they added the 6 digit element number for each color. Who other than TLG has this kind of extended database? But it's easier to remove something useful than to put more work into maintaining a correct database.
And what about the Studio part file names? Those are directly linked to BL and Ldraw.

@DonnaxNL said:
" @bnic99 said:
"Removing "with grooves" from tiles is concerning.
I have found the grooveless variety to be rather difficult to disassemble when attached to other parts at times, the groove was added for a reason!"

They will only remove the "with grooves" from the title, not the whole entry."
That's the only good decision in this change, making "with groove" the default, so tiles and jumpers with a groove have it removed from the name, and without a groove will have it added to the name.

@Rare_White_Ape said:
"Secondly, Bricklink made avilable a list of parts where sellers could maintain a distinction between part variants, provided they (the sellers) describe the parts on sale as so:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629

This will help buyers choose their parts with the same level of detail that these buyers currently use to choose their parts now."
So they recognise that there are buyers and sellers who are interested in this level of detail.
Moving it into individual lot descriptions is going to be a pain for sellers to maintain, and a pain for buyers to search. As far as I know the wanted list doesn't support searching descriptions.

The proper solution is to make a generic part that's a parent to mold variants. If a seller doesn't want to make the distinction, they can list the generic part. If they do, they can select the particular variant they are selling.
If a buyer doesn't care they search for the generic parent, which returns parts listed as generic, as well as all the mold variants listed as child parts. If a buyer wants a specific mold variant they can search for that.

Still waiting for the variant to distinguish between reddish-brown and useless-crumbly-reddish-brown.

BL is no longer run by hobbyists, but instead by a greedy company that hates itself

As a Studio 2.0 builder, I'm feeling very uneasy about this.

Mark me down as another "this is a bad idea" user.
I love BL. It's got quirks and places for improvement, but this certainly ain't it. As another vintage 80s and 90s collector (though perhaps not as fastidious as some here), this will make my work more annoying.

Bad move. Here's hoping they change plans.

@MisterBrickster said:
"What next? Merging old and new grey?"

This would cause a lot of problems and generally be a pain, but it would also be very funny.

This is the exact wrong direction that I would want for BrickLink to take. Some parts look quite different between variants and, as I understand it, BrickLink only distinguishes by function and not form. It's quite a shame.

This is a dumb thing to do. bricklink is the place to look up all that info.

is there another place that has this large information?

@Gadzooks said:
"Such a brainless decision. BrickLink is THE place to find nitty-gritty information on these part differences.
"

It used to be. In my opinion Rebrickable surpassed them years ago with their level of detail and information about parts. Can't beat Rebrickable's attention to details when it comes to colors either.

@Rare_White_Ape said:
"First of all, Bricklink is an 'it', not a 'they'. As a professional reporter, the person who wrote this article should know this.

Secondly, Bricklink made avilable a list of parts where sellers could maintain a distinction between part variants, provided they (the sellers) describe the parts on sale as so:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629

This will help buyers choose their parts with the same level of detail that these buyers currently use to choose their parts now.

This wasn't listed within the Brickset article, so affected sellers should check their sources (as sent by Brcklink via email) before the changeover date, which is February 15th, not February 1st, as reported here.

"

As a professional reporter you should know how to spell "avilable" - proper spelling is available.

A thoroughly bad idea. Perhaps most worrying is the attitude it was presented with, "most people don't care, we'll cater to them." Most people don't get that deep into Lego nuances, but we need those that do to continue doing so. And some of the non-important distinctions being removed are actually as important as any. Ridges versus non-ridges on tiles do matter. Identifying reissued Classic Space torsos does matter. These aren't minor things to those trying to obtain the older variants. It's just colossally stupid.

I hear next they will be removing the color option to make it easier on sellers.

The TVA hard at work destroying variants, destroying lives!!

Most of these, the data seems irrelevant (sprue marks, connections between studs.

But...

The link to the sample for " Hinge Brick 2 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical and Axle Hole (x Shape)" lists as its variants versions that don't have holes at all. That's a major functional difference!

The Duplo Bottom Tube or not also changes its interoperability with Lego, doesn't it?

Hopefully row-boat-with-oar-holding-holes and the newer crappier row-boat-with-solid-holes remain distinct.

Also looks like the clips variants are staying. Because they're very different. (The new ones are much more functional and sturdy than those in the 90s that loved to break.)

@ZZJHONS said:
"The first help page was posted to discuss it on the forum 2 weeks ago, after it the new list more detailed was published and the date moved forward.

Here is a summary of the important information posted by Admin Russell:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450622"

Admin_Russell said:
"When it comes to the bricks themselves, there were actually more variants than
what are currently shown on BrickLink."
I don't get this. How can the absence of information be an argument to throw out/ignore the information that you do have?

@BrickRandom said:
"In my opinion Rebrickable surpassed them years ago with their level of detail and information about parts. Can't beat Rebrickable's attention to details when it comes to colors either."
Is this also true for the older vintage parts?

@Paperballpark said:
"I thought this was a terrible decision when I read the article, but then I went to the list of what they're removing and it seems to only be stuff with really minor differences, so that's not too bad. It's not like they're removing different types of clips"
I think it's a bad idea to remove information. Especially if it's being used. Like others have said, I to am more in favour of a work-around solution to cater to everyone's needs. I agree with you that it doesn't seem too bad, looking at the parts that are actually affected. However, I fear that adopting this strategy leads down the wrong road and might open the door to more extreme changes in the future.

I think R.R. Slugger makes a very valid point: Bricklink is predominantly a catalog/resource to many LEGO fans, and those folks see its role as a marketplace as secondary. I realize that TLG will likely not see things that way, but what appears to be a complete lack of concern for this aspect (parts variation) of their own history is frustrating. I don't like the implications of the precedent being set.

https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=-W1GH52ADww5AZdo

Does anyone know why they are pursuing the idea of merging variants into a single catalogue entry when so many Lego users seem opposed to it? Is it simplicity for sellers to list elements? I think that this will give rise to alternative websites that Lego can’t directly influence by just buying the site. Reducing the functionality of Bricklink will probably reduce its usage.

Quick, everyone, start printing out Bricklink before they stop us

It's just another sign of TLG not giving a toss what their most ardent supporters want.
TLG seems to be interested only in new and casual users, not their established user base that have been fans for decades.

To me it matters very much what part variant I get when buying on Bricklink, especially when trying to complete used sets bought on ebay or somewhere else with period correct pieces.
That to me was one of the unique selling points of Bricklink up to now.
Thank God I've almost completed my list of missing wanted sets by now, so I can simply stop using Bricklink from now on.
TLG really do try everything to annoy longtime fans and drive them away. And dare I say they are succeeding.

LEGO: "We really want to make our product for adults."
Also LEGO: "We really need to get rid of tools our adult fans find useful."

I'm sure they're doing just fine financially in Billund, but sometimes I don't get their thinking.

After the outage in November, you’d think BL would be trying to not shoot themselves in the foot

I don’t understand it. Bricklink was created by Lego fans and has been the largest, most specific database of any Lego site. Removing these features destroys information which some fans spent hours creating and other fans care about.

This decision was obviouslly made by someone that does not know or care about vintage sets. Many people appreciate the unique qualities of vintage sets, and this decision could negatively impact their experience in aquiring pieces to complete such sets.

Glad I got my vintage sets back together. The biggest change for me will be the Minifig chairs. I am not normally bothered by minor part variants, but those sprue marks stick out like a sore thumb in vintage sets.

This change doesn't help anyone but lazy sellers. Use filters, or just change the name. Don't remove valuable information.

The majority of these parts are not minor cosmetic differences and have important visual and/or functional differences.

If they really do want to create an "undefined" default variant that could be either variant for sellers and buyers who don't care, that'd be fine. As long as the specific variants stay catalogued, linked to sets, and available for those who do care.

I hope they hear the outcry and revert the decision before it takes affect.

I heard many youtube videos about this, and I think it's awful.

Getting rid of variants? Who do they think they are? The Time Variance Authority?

In all seriousness, I really do not like this idea. As my screen name implies, I am a librarian. Specifically, I work with bibliographic metadata. It is always better to have more granular metadata than to have less granular metadata. An interface can always be configured to display or index specific things more generally but can not be configured to display or index general things more specifically. This is a very bad idea.

No sir, I don't like it.

@oukexergon said:
" @emQ said:
"Most of these, the data seems irrelevant (sprue marks, connections between studs."

It's all relative--to some the sprue marks will be an issue. If you are trying to complete an old set and get the sprue marks, you will be displeased!"
It just goes to show that they don't have a clue who Bricklink was created for in the first place. Or why it is so special and so well-loved - at least until now that is.

I could see a solution where the default is pieces are grouped together to simplify the buying process for more “mainstream” customers. But the ability to drill down and filter the pieces by variant should remain for those who care about those details.

In other words, I think there’s a solution out there that can cover both uses case better. But they need to keep problem solving this one.

@Brickchap said:
"I thought Bricklink got taken over by The Lego Group, not Australian politicians.

This is terrible. When looking for pieces in my collection I like to know the differences as sometimes you want a specific type, or especially when using Studio if I'm buying direct from Lego the last thing I want is to accidentally use some old or rare piece when it is the widely available contemporary piece I want."

Are Australian politicians any worse than any other politicians?

@Rare_White_Ape said:
"Secondly, Bricklink made avilable a list of parts where sellers could maintain a distinction between part variants, provided they (the sellers) describe the parts on sale as so:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629 "

And why should BL users go through their inventories and do this ridiculous amount of work when the system as-is WORKS JUST FINE? Before defending them, step back and consider the arbitrary nature of the change and all its possible ramifications now and down the road. As new sellers come in, BL expects they will not make a distinction--they hope no one will. That means in the future vintage sets will become increasingly difficult, indeed if BL has its way impossible, to complete.

Why are Lego doing this, it's clearly an unpopular idea, and surely it would be easier to leave things alone than change them? Is there a customer support email address or something we can send our concerns to, maybe 200 emails saying bad idea might convince them to have a second think.

Just been looking on Bricklink, if you click help centre then click help desk, you can send an email to them. Doubt it will have much effect but gonna try anyway

I'm a collector and restorer of vintage sets, so this just makes my life harder.

Bricklink already doesn't differentiate between many many extant variants of parts and this just exacerbates that problem.

I'm absolutely certain there's a solution here that pleases everyone but no attempt has been made to navigate to it.

Yes it would make inventory management for bulk sellers more difficult, but such a task is already incredibly cumbersome- it would at least encourage the sellers to charge a premium for specificity.

I know that if I spend $10-20 on a rare old part, I expect to receive the correct item and not a modern variant - something that becomes increasingly common as parts are reissued more and more frequently!

Bricklink should strive to be the best it can be. Only the best is good enough!

@BricksAhoy said:
"If they really do want to create an "undefined" default variant that could be either variant for sellers and buyers who don't care, that'd be fine."

They used to have exactly that, but for the past few years have marked them for deletion, forcing sellers to specify the part variant. They caused their own problem. Absolutely incompetent.

@krysto2002 said:
"I'm a collector and restorer of vintage sets, so this just makes my life harder.

Bricklink already doesn't differentiate between many many extant variants of parts and this just exacerbates that problem.

I'm absolutely certain there's a solution here that pleases everyone but no attempt has been made to navigate to it.

Yes it would make inventory management for bulk sellers more difficult, but such a task is already incredibly cumbersome- it would at least encourage the sellers to charge a premium for specificity.

I know that if I spend $10-20 on a rare old part, I expect to receive the correct item and not a modern variant - something that becomes increasingly common as parts are reissued more and more frequently!

Bricklink should strive to be the best it can be. Only the best is good enough!"

'Only the best is good enough' has left the building a long time ago...

@Maxbricks14 said:
"WOW it's such a big deal!

not

why is everybody so annoyed it's just a bunch of the same bricks being merged."

If you're a kiddo who just started buying Lego two years ago, it's probably not a good idea to comment on an article like this. Us old people need to shake our fists, darn gonnit!

This is a very bad idea. Everyone should comment directly on the thread on the Bricklink forum and post photographic examples of why merging parts destroys important functional differences and erases history for no meaningful benefit to the buyer or seller experience. But even when I do that, I'm just one anonymous internet commenter. God, I feel so powerless to make a difference with anything today.

Wow

A classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Why would Lego want to dilute the quality of the Bricklink dataset?? And at the same time really annoy collectors of vintage Lego. Seems stupid to me.

What's next, merge colours? so old grey parts are exactly the same as modern light bluey grey?

@Maxbricks14 said:
" @oukexergon said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"WOW it's such a big deal!

not

why is everybody so annoyed it's just a bunch of the same bricks being merged."

If you're a kiddo who just started buying Lego two years ago, it's probably not a good idea to comment on an article like this. Us old people need to shake our fists, darn gonnit!"

No, i'm not but really does it matter if there is a slight difference between a part. It's not even noticeable. I think everyone is over-reacting, shouldn't it be better because it will be easier to find a part you're looking for. I've used it and it is very hard to do that so this news is great."

It's hard to tell if you're trolling, then, because what you're saying is the opposite of reality. If I'm looking for a 1x2 locking hinge with 7 teeth rather than 9 teeth, and BL has erased that difference, how is it going to be easier to find what I'm looking for?

*Sir Topham Hat voice on*
'Bricklink, I expected better of you - you have caused the much confusion and delay! Now, go to your server room and think about what you've done, and how to be a really useful website again! Only then, will we let you out again.'
*Sir Topham Hat voice off*

@Maxbricks14 said:
"But why does it matter? it's the same function as the other version of the piece."

In this particular case, the change was made for structural integrity, it was changed by TLG because it matters. Other than that, because the original set I'm trying to complete had the particular one and not the other one and I want to be able to have it in its original state, or sell it down the road or resell it as complete now. The detriment of erasing existing information doesn't end there. The price differences between older parts, as less and less become available, matters to sellers. To buyers like you, you'd go for the cheaper one anyway, because you don't care about the difference, wheras other buyers would feel better spending more to know they are getting the right part. Finally, people have meticulously corrected the set inventories for years, that's a lot of people's work and long-standing practices of differentiating parts being arbitrarily erased to benefit exactly no one.

Feels like climate change in here. Lots of people with examples of how they use it in its current form and why that's better, and like one dude who thinks it's fine.

@Maxbricks14 said:
"It's clear we have very different opinions on this news. Lets settle things by ending this argument."

Okay... just let me ask you this: would you be OK with BL taking out the variations of color (old pink versus new pink, old brown versus new brown) just because they are supposedly, broadly "functionally the same" and that they supposedly "split the inventory" between them, and makes it supposedly "more complicated for sellers"? What is the argument, other than personal feelings, for preserving one and not the other?

I think this might actually be the first time I've seen the comments section agree in something in ten years.

@oukexergon said:
" @john_paul_galan_gmail_com said:
"Does anyone know why they are pursuing the idea of merging variants into a single catalogue entry when so many Lego users seem opposed to it? Is it simplicity for sellers to list elements? I think that this will give rise to alternative websites that Lego can’t directly influence by just buying the site. Reducing the functionality of Bricklink will probably reduce its usage. "

It's simple. The more TLG manages to erase old inventory items and replace them with current ones, and the more they shrink the market for older sets, the better their bottom line is."

Maybe in the short term, but a short-term financial improvement often leads to a long-term loss and a weaker market for both new and old.

@Maxbricks14 said:
" @oukexergon said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
" @oukexergon said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"WOW it's such a big deal!

not

why is everybody so annoyed it's just a bunch of the same bricks being merged."

If you're a kiddo who just started buying Lego two years ago, it's probably not a good idea to comment on an article like this. Us old people need to shake our fists, darn gonnit!"

No, i'm not but really does it matter if there is a slight difference between a part. It's not even noticeable. I think everyone is over-reacting, shouldn't it be better because it will be easier to find a part you're looking for. I've used it and it is very hard to do that so this news is great."

It's hard to tell if you're trolling, then, because what you're saying is the opposite of reality. If I'm looking for a 1x2 locking hinge with 7 teeth rather than 9 teeth, and BL has erased that difference, how is it going to be easier to find what I'm looking for?"

But why does it matter? it's the same function as the other version of the piece."

Some of us are purist collectors, and we have a preference that way. If you spend several hundred dollars on a set and don't mind if the parts are not all original to the set, then great for you. For purist collectors it matters, especially when buying older and higher value sets.

@dimc said:
"Feels like climate change in here. Lots of people with examples of how they use it in its current form and why that's better, and like one dude who thinks it's fine. "

Agreed! If Brickset is united as one (well... almost!) then you know it must be a serious matter. I've never, in my MANY years (17?) of being on here, seen Brickset this together.

People been meticulously cataloging this stuff for years and they wanna just undo all that? Sounds like a middle finger to the old fans and all the hard work that's been put into this.

They're modeling this incorrectly. Variant needs to be a child relationship to part. Then the catalog could be completely comprehensive, while also allowing buyers and sellers who don't attempt to distinguish by variant to select "unspecified" when adding/searching. Sellers who want to capture the price premium commanded by sub-sorted variants can go to that extra effort.

Sellers miscategorizing variants is definitely a problem already. But the best fix isn't eliminating variations entirely.

Are you shitting me?

What an unbelievably stupid decision.
Clearly TLG has taken over. This is the type of move that only someone completely detached from the fandom would make. And BrickLink used to be more aware of how fans use their website. LEGO on the other hand has clearly no clue.

Just to add my voice of: VERY BAD IDEA!

@tedgarb said:
"I know I will be canceled for this opinion, but this is good for most people, who really don’t care about obscure differences. I am sympathetic to the people who care, but much like the chrome controversy, I would rather the preeminent site for loose parts focus on the silent majority who don’t care. And I say this as someone who has dropped thousands to get factory-sealed old sets specifically for old parts. People like me will always be able to find the obscure perfect part we want, it’s crucial the casual and new fans be able to find things easily as well to grow the hobby"

The preeminent site should excise utility that has helped it become the preeminent site?

And I have to argue that putting more advanced, or "power user," or what-have-you functions on the chopping block all the time is a terrible idea. Long-time users lose the tools that let them accomplish advanced tasks more efficiently, and new users lose the opportunity to ever learn. Put the complex version in some sort of "advanced user" option, or something, where a new or casual user won't stumble in and mess things up for themselves. This applies to a whole slew of other websites and software, as much as BrickLink.

This is the last straw. While I don’t particularly have an opinion on this issue, I’m tired of my LEGO brethren struggling to have a voice with LEGO.

I am quitting this hobby. Well, except for the ornithopter. And the new medieval market. Actually, I have been thinking long and hard about Gringotts. Well, I also don’t yet have the Ideas Insects. Wait, what if more LOTR sets come out? And I did promise someone (me) the BLDP Train shed.

Ok, never mind. @Ridgeheart speaks for me, as always.

@AllenSmith said:
"They're modeling this incorrectly. Variant needs to be a child relationship to part. Then the catalog could be completely comprehensive, while also allowing buyers and sellers who don't attempt to distinguish by variant to select "unspecified" when adding/searching. Sellers who want to capture the price premium commanded by sub-sorted variants can go to that extra effort.

Sellers miscategorizing variants is definitely a problem already. But the best fix isn't eliminating variations entirely."

This, pretty much - it would entirely be for the better considering you're dealing with decades of parts/variants.

Terrible decision. Some LEGO historians with more free time than me need to copy/download Bricklink's affected set inventories ASAP.

@Maxbricks14 said:
"It's clear we have very different opinions on this news. Lets settle things by ending this argument."
No, the only thing that is clear is that you apparently don't give a toss about the matter and therefore are the ideal LEGO customer. Indifferent and uninformed. For people like you there is LEGO's very own Bricks and Pieces service available if you want to buy individual bricks.

Bricklink otoh is specifically suited for and tailored to those people who do care which very specific variant of part they want. People who care whether their set is period correct or not.
If I bought a vintage set for example that the seller describes as "complete", but say the seats have the new ugly visible sprue marks that simply didn't exist back then, or it contains 1 by x bricks and plates with antistuds that are not solid but have holes in them like current versions have, then that set imho is not complete in the true sense. It's just as fake a rebrick as if it contained pieces by an alternative manufacturer to fill in gaps in the inventory of very rare pieces for example.
Or take Classic Space minifigs and their helmets. There's a reason the old version in black costs a fortune, since it's so rare, while the modern variant is cheap but doesn't look like the old one.
Sure, to you such things will seem insignificant, but to many others they are very important.

It's like with vintage cars. Sure, many parts can be replaced with modern variants that look similar, but try to sell the car to a collector. It will fetch a fraction of what buyers are willing to pay for an original.
People do care a lot about authenticity.

@Spritetoggle said:
" @tedgarb said:
"I know I will be canceled for this opinion, but this is good for most people, who really don’t care about obscure differences. I am sympathetic to the people who care, but much like the chrome controversy, I would rather the preeminent site for loose parts focus on the silent majority who don’t care. And I say this as someone who has dropped thousands to get factory-sealed old sets specifically for old parts. People like me will always be able to find the obscure perfect part we want, it’s crucial the casual and new fans be able to find things easily as well to grow the hobby"

The preeminent site should excise utility that has helped it become the preeminent site?

And I have to argue that putting more advanced, or "power user," or what-have-you functions on the chopping block all the time is a terrible idea. Long-time users lose the tools that let them accomplish advanced tasks more efficiently, and new users lose the opportunity to ever learn. Put the complex version in some sort of "advanced user" option, or something, where a new or casual user won't stumble in and mess things up for themselves. This applies to a whole slew of other websites and software, as much as BrickLink."
Plus, I would argue that the majority of Bricklink users aren't these "casual users" anyway, and never will be. From my experience Bricklink is just for us nerds really. None of the "casual users" of LEGO I know have ever even heard of Bricklink to begin with. Most of them don't even know that you can buy individual parts directly from LEGO, let alone from someplace else.
No, this attention to detail is exactly what made Bricklink what it is and what is so special and valuable about it.
If they destroy that then what reason for existence does Bricklink even have any longer? Then we could all just buy our pieces from LEGO directly, or via ebay, or wherever.
No one needs a Bricklink that is just a copy of those other places.

VERY bad decision. Part/mold variants are important for many Bricklink users, especially when searching for missing parts in older sets.
It seems that current owners of Bricklink (people from Lego Company) don't understand Bricklink's user base enough, or they just don't care.

I am especially worried that this will not be only a single stupid decision. It seems to me this will probably represent only a first step in the process of "dumbing down" Bricklink catalog during the next months / years (judging by the lack of logic shown by Bricklink management in this case, the lack of care for historical data about Lego sets and parts, the disregard for opinions of their user base, and the lack of understanding for what purposes are people using Bricklink).

HORRIBLE NEWS.
I built the Arvo Brothers Alien a few years ago and there were some elements with specific design variants that were visually significant. It was hard enough to find some elements but if there was no designation for those changes it would have been impossible to sort the uncommon from the run of the mill.

Another concern is for the AFOLs who are part collectors! Our New Elementary friends and traders in subtlety different parts would be SOL.

Don’t do it Bricklink! Don’t do it LEGO! It can’t be a server or capacity issue, and if you don’t have lego nerds working there who are devoted to tracking these little changes, you need to hire better people.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Daniel Jezek himself came back to life to nix this idea.

As well he should!

Bricklink: DISAGREE.

Well that’s just about the dumbest decision they have made so far, that’s all I’ll say.

Pretty clear from the many comments already posted that this decision hasn't been made with their "customers" in mind. Absolutely ridiculous decision, but I bet someone, somewhere will be getting a nice fat bonus off the back of this.

I don't mind the changes too much. The headline always looks bad, but when you delve into what is changing at this time, it really isn't that bad aside from a few merges.

I think some people get a bit too hung up on 'the correct' part for vintage sets. The bricklink catalogue has errors in it. Many of them. In some cases because they have never correctly dealt with variants of some basic parts such as 1xX bricks, partly as some of it is guesswork and assumption (for older sets where no sealed are available), partly as minifigure inventories do not allow for alternate parts and so the first stud type gets taken as genuine while others are seen as wrong even if added to notes, partly as even some modern parts that LEGO uses different IDs for are grouped under the same BL ID, partly as not all alternate parts are accepted by admins even though (especially for vintage sets produced in different locations over many years) moulds were changed during production.

@Draykov said:
"I think R.R. Slugger makes a very valid point: Bricklink is predominantly a catalog/resource to many LEGO fans, and those folks see its role as a marketplace as secondary. I realize that TLG will likely not see things that way, but what appears to be a complete lack of concern for this aspect (parts variation) of their own history is frustrating. I don't like the implications of the precedent being set.

https://youtu.be/aGRxNX8Cg_o?si=-W1GH52ADww5AZdo "

I find it hard to trust much of youtube, especially outrage videos like this. Concerning the 7 vs 9 teeth hinges, he says that some of these hinges gave a full range of motion and the others don’t. 7 and 9 hinges have exactly the same range of angles. If someone doesn't know that, it indicates they haven't actually compared them before telling others about how bad the decision to merge them is.

Add me to chorus who cry out: Dumbing down the database is the wrong move! Do not merge differentiated data! Find a better solution to the problem, Bricklink…

@CCC said:
"
If I was spending $10-20 on a single part, I'd ask the seller to check it is the old rare part and probably send a photo if there is any doubt, with or without this change. Just because variants are separated (currently) it doesn't mean the seller has identified them correctly. "

And if you are buying large number of different parts which cost from $0.90 to $4.00? Would you ask seller to check and send pictures for each part? Vast majority of sellers would not bother to do that for large number of parts.

Until now, we were able to order specific variants of parts that we need for a specific set or MOC. If a seller makes a mistake and sends wrong variants, we had ground to ask for a replacement or refund for those parts.

With these changes, we will never know which variant we will receive if we order those affected parts (seller could check and photograph for us few parts, but not 50 or 150 parts).
The point is that with these changes there will be NO MORE GROUNDS FOR REFUND OR REPLACEMENT if we receive variants that we don't need.

@CCC said:
"when you delve into what is changing at this time, it really isn't that bad aside from a few merges."

Not bad? Few merges?
Over ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED entries in the Catalog (1636 parts, to be specific) will be merged - effectively permanently deleted.

Some examples:
The catalog will stop differentiating between minifig torsos from 80s and 90s and recent copies (reissues).
The catalog will stop differentiating between tiles with and without groove.
The catalog will stop differentiating between newer seats/chairs which have big, ugly sprue mark in the middle, and older seats without sprue mark.
Etc.

So 1636 entries will be affected, and it IS bad.

@Lion_knight said:
"
The catalog will stop differentiating between tiles with and without groove.
"

Now read beyond the headlines and ignore the videos produced by people that don't know what they are talking about. They are not going to stop differentiating between tiles with and without a groove. They are renaming the modern and now most common part so that it does not have 'with groove' in the name. That seems like a sensible move to me, so that modern and all future versions do not have to have the archaic qualifier in their name based on a part that hasn't been produced for almost half a century.

It's all about the money ... TLG is only a commercial entity now, any early idealism has gone. I recall that one of the first things TLG did after the takeover is kick out makers of specialist add-on parts even though LEGO had no intention of making those parts themselves. I love LEGO but I despise the company.

@MisterBrickster said:
"I think this might actually be the first time I've seen the comments section agree in something in ten years."

I would mostly agree. However, you and another commenter are forgetting about the legendary My Dad and its comment section. That being said, I certainly don't think we have ever had as united of a comment section with a TLG decision. Truly, this should be a sign that they are headed the wrong direction.

@CCC said:
"They are not going to stop differentiating between tiles with and without a groove. They are renaming the modern and now most common part so that it does not have 'with groove' in the name."

It seems you don't understand the problem here:
• When Bricklink management deletes "with groove" from the title of so many parts, sellers will be able to list ALL types of tiles under those categories - so also those without groove.
• Therefore, after these changes buyers will not be 100% sure what kind of tiles they will receive.
• Additionaly, if the buyers receive parts they do not need (in this example tiles without groove), they will not have the ground for complaint any more (seller will not have to send any replacement or isssue a refund for those parts, because "with groove" was deleted from the titles).
• Also, sellers will probably see increased number of unsatisfied buyers (those that did not expect to receive unwanted variants of parts).

This is definitely change for the worse.

I really hope they revert this decision, the whole point of Bricklink is to have a precise tracking of all parts and items that LEGO has produced to make it easier to acquire them, makes absolutely no sense to just merge pieces that look similar...