Help us to improve our reviews

Just submitted mine. :)

It would be nice to review sets from others brands. Original ones obviously. I built a giant Pikachu from a U.S. brand (Mega Construx) and it was great. Not sure it make sense to focus on Lego. I feel it would be nice to open up to other things and it is deserved (great builds and value).

Done <3

is it just me having problems with the form? it gives me a pop up every time I try to answer saying "autosave your work! google will autosave your work if you want to take a breakyadayadayada....." and when I click "ok" it just reloads the page and gives me the pop up. I know its something on my end, just hoped to see if anyone else was having the same issues.

edit: got it working, never mind. thanks for the options @Huw

@Huw said:
"Also, here in the UK, we are not exposed to the supposed high quality clones that are mentioned in the comments: they are just not available in our shops. It's LEGO, M??ab???s or cheap rubbish in Wilco and other discount stores."
If that "cheap rubbish" is along the lines of brands like BestLock, then I can fully understand your original wording.

As for the other brands, PM me if you are interested to know about my experiences with some of them and why I hold them in such high regard by now. Here is understandably not the place to discuss this any further.

@Binary_Code said:
"I definitely enjoy the personality of the sloths, goats, etc. for what it's worth!

Another thing I appreciate and would like to see more of is children's opinions on play functions, game mechanics, and other features obviously designed for kids. I think it provides insight into how effective sets are at capturing the target audience and gives some context for AFOLs who can't comprehend that not every decision Lego makes is intended to appeal to them.

One recommendation I have is to include pictures of the source material, when applicable. It would be nice to see the real world landmark, Star Wars vehicle, Ninjago/Monkie Kid cartoon character, or whatever else a set might be trying to recreate. Oftentimes a review will comment on how well a set represents the source material or how well certain details are captured but rarely is the source material ever actually shown to support those verdicts. I know that this adds a layer of complexity to preparing set reviews but I think it would be valuable for effectively judging sets."

Maybe there are photo/ intellectual property rights issues with non Lego images being used.

I 'ticked' this as very useful in the survey, but would like to make mention here as well that one thing I would like to see added to all reviews is the overall 'out of 5' stars review, similar to what you already do for the AC's. I'm not expecting breakdown similar to Sariel, but overall rating would be great.

PS
Keep the goats and sloths coming :)

The only big issue I have with these reviews is the usual lack of parts photos. I guess I may be stuck in old habits where I take photos of all the separate parts from the set gathered together or a group of select rare or new parts to highlight. I know the official set inventories help in this regard, but they are often incomplete so it's hard to rely on them. But I also understand it can be time consuming to organize the parts like that for a photoshoot, especially given how many reviews I see this site crank out. So it's not a make or break deal but just something I'd like.

And thinking about it now, while I do get a rush of disappointment when I see the sloths in a review photo and then realize they don't come with the set, it doesn't really detract from the reviews that much and it gives them character, so I hope those stick around. :)

I think, although some "off-brands" (is that a nicer way to say it than "clone brands"?) may have improved in quality and originality, perhaps some of us "LEGO purists*" (for lack of a better word) resent that these off-shoots originated, at least in part, because of patent infringement. It's no secret that a certain unnamed country is famous for having local companies rip off long-standing copyrights and intellectual property rights from well-established name brands (whether it's LEGO, certain brands of electronics/computers/phones, clothing, etc.) and, in some cases, they're still doing it.

Even though LEGO's original patents (e.g., the old "stud and tube" brick connectivity) have long since expired (despite their attempts to extend their patents and to protect their intellectual property in court), which opened the door for other companies to make their own version of buildable bricks (even if they are poorer in quality) that happen to be compatible with LEGO bricks, I do think that some of us still resent the fact that these off-brands started off as competitors to the original and that some of them were blatant in their copying and cloning of the original.

Then again, competition can be healthy, and hopefully TLG can, if they haven't yet done so, use their market competition to continue to pursue new innovations and promote (e.g., their latest "Rebuild the World" and "Adults Welcome" marketing campaigns) to try to keep their commanding lead in the market.

I entirely respect Huw, et al., for their continuing to maintain brickset.com as a place to discuss LEGO. (Not just because, from a corporate point of view, brickset.com is a fan media site that gets to review LEGO products for a wider audience to find out more about them.)

* Disclaimer: yes, I once bought M**a Bl***s for myself: Star Trek: TNG NCC-1701-D. What can I say? I was young, and naive. :-)

I enjoy spotting the sloths, so it's too bad the disclaimer kind of spoils it a little (though I totally understand why it's needed!). I do appreciate the effort the staff go to to vary the disclaimers.

@cflyg said:
"Even though LEGO's original patents (e.g., the old "stud and tube" brick connectivity) have long since expired (despite their attempts to extend their patents and to protect their intellectual property in court), which opened the door for other companies to make their own version of buildable bricks (even if they are poorer in quality) that happen to be compatible with LEGO bricks, I do think that some of us still resent the fact that these off-brands started off as competitors to the original and that some of them were blatant in their copying and cloning of the original."

The problem with this argument is that so did LEGO. You can read about it on Wikipedia (look up Hilary Page, Kiddicraft, or LEGO clone). Here are some snippets:

"Post WWII, [Hilary] Page designed and produced the Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Bricks,[9] that have been described as the "original LEGO".[10] These were smaller, refined versions of the Interlocking Building Cube. Bricks could be stacked on each other and were held in place by studs on the top... He patented the basic design, a 2 X 4 studded brick, in 1947.

The Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Brick sets were first marketed in 1947... Ole Kirk Christiansen and his son Godtfred became aware of the Kiddicraft brick after examining a sample, and possibly drawings, given to them by the British supplier of the first injection moulding machine they had purchased. Realising their potential, Ole modified the Kiddicraft brick and in 1949 marketed his own version, The Automatic Binding Brick, that became the Lego brick in 1953.[14][15]

Page was reportedly never aware of this according to his family, and the company Lego Ole Christiansen founded expanded into Western Europe. British Lego Ltd. was set up in late 1959 and the first sets were sold the following year. Lego eventually acquired the residual rights to the Kiddicraft brick designs in 1981. In an out-of-court settlement, Lego paid UK £45,000 to the new owners of Page's company Hestair-Kiddicraft.[16]

LEGO acknowledges Kiddicraft as the origin of their bricks on their history website, and tells a different version of how things happened. They say that they contacted Kiddicraft in the late 1950s to ask them if they would object to the LEGO brick, and Kiddicraft didn't."

^ Dogged by business problems, Page committed suicide in 1957.

@illennium said:
" @cflyg said:
"Even though LEGO's original patents (e.g., the old "stud and tube" brick connectivity) have long since expired (despite their attempts to extend their patents and to protect their intellectual property in court), which opened the door for other companies to make their own version of buildable bricks (even if they are poorer in quality) that happen to be compatible with LEGO bricks, I do think that some of us still resent the fact that these off-brands started off as competitors to the original and that some of them were blatant in their copying and cloning of the original."

The problem with this argument is that so did LEGO. You can read about it on Wikipedia (look up Hilary Page, Kiddicraft, or LEGO clone). Here are some snippets:

"Post WWII, [Hilary] Page designed and produced the Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Bricks,[9] that have been described as the "original LEGO".[10] These were smaller, refined versions of the Interlocking Building Cube. Bricks could be stacked on each other and were held in place by studs on the top... He patented the basic design, a 2 X 4 studded brick, in 1947.

The Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Brick sets were first marketed in 1947... Ole Kirk Christiansen and his son Godtfred became aware of the Kiddicraft brick after examining a sample, and possibly drawings, given to them by the British supplier of the first injection moulding machine they had purchased. Realising their potential, Ole modified the Kiddicraft brick and in 1949 marketed his own version, The Automatic Binding Brick, that became the Lego brick in 1953.[14][15]

Page was reportedly never aware of this according to his family, and the company Lego Ole Christiansen founded expanded into Western Europe. British Lego Ltd. was set up in late 1959 and the first sets were sold the following year. Lego eventually acquired the residual rights to the Kiddicraft brick designs in 1981. In an out-of-court settlement, Lego paid UK £45,000 to the new owners of Page's company Hestair-Kiddicraft.[16]

LEGO acknowledges Kiddicraft as the origin of their bricks on their history website, and tells a different version of how things happened. They say that they contacted Kiddicraft in the late 1950s to ask them if they would object to the LEGO brick, and Kiddicraft didn't."

"

Thank you for making me aware of this. That’s new information to me. History is written by the victors, it seems (pertaining to the two differing stories regarding Kiddiecraft influences). I don’t like Wikipedia as a primary source for information so I’d like to find out more from original sources.

In that case, however, I suppose there’s a sentimental factor as well. I grew up with LEGO Space, still have my monorail set, and I guess the sentimentalist in me resents, to some degree, the off-brands competing in this market.

@DearMisterLegoBreaker said:
"It would be nice to review sets from others brands. Original ones obviously. I built a giant Pikachu from a U.S. brand (Mega Construx) and it was great. Not sure it make sense to focus on Lego. I feel it would be nice to open up to other things and it is deserved (great builds and value)."

While I accept that those companies will never be reviewed here, I support your idea. Ive bought all the recent Mega Construx Halo sets and have only had ONE missing piece! Thats not the quality I was expecting based on the Lego community's often spread rumors about its poor quality. I also approve of Huws choice to keep the site exclusively Lego though. (Extreme Lego fans, look away!)

Maybe we should start our own version of Brickset, you can do Pokemon, Ill do Halo lol. We can review sets and have a set of the day and everything!

Avoiding showcasing parts that aren't in sets included in photos of said sets during reviews would be quite good. Love both sloths and goats, feel like the joke or whatever is overplayed and photos could show the actual figures in the set doing the same activities. In this house, we wanna see what's actually in there to make a decision about if it's a good buy or gift. I feel like personal joke photos belong on personal social media or a separate kind of thing.

Otherwise love and rely on the reviews!

@Huw said:
" @DearMisterLegoBreaker and @AustinPowers , sorry if I was a little blunt!

I believe it's a condition of being a recognised fan media site that we do not promote clone brands which therefore precludes us from reviewing them.

Also, here in the UK, we are not exposed to the supposed high quality clones that are mentioned in the comments: they are just not available in our shops. It's LEGO, M??ab???s or cheap rubbish in Wilco and other discount stores.

"

I am a LEGO purist, and have been since I was 10 years old. If other brands were to be reviewed here, you would likely lose my audience due to the clutter that I would need to sort through. I know that most purists feel the same way that I do on this issue. Thanks for keeping this website exclusively LEGO!

Looks like I'm late, but I think you should be more critical about the quality of Lego parts. Lego is an expensive premium brand with the motto "only the best is good enough" and overall the quality is indeed very high. However, there are ongoing issues with colour matching of the plastic, colour matching between print and plastic (especially printing on darker colours of plastic), and of course the transparent plastic introduced in 2019 which is less transparent than the former and also much more prone to scratches, so much that the parts often come scratched out of the box. I don't think this should be acceptable for a brand like Lego and I think a site like Brickset should mention those issues when relevant.

I missed my chance because the response window was hilariously small for the survey, but two things:

1) Use a star/number rating system at the end of the review.

2) stop including pieces that aren't in the set as part of the review. I dont need to see a stockpile of goats every review; i want to know about what I'm actually getting, not how many goats someone else has in their collection