Our response to your feedback

What about the results for favorite themes, sets, minifigs? Apart from themes the polls had hidden results.

@Huw

Having just reread your Porsche review, I'd say the majority of it is simply stating facts. Your opinion is saved for the last couple of paragraphs where you state:

It's attractive
No functionality / gears
Doesn't look like it's worth the asking price

So yes, it comes across as a 2/5 review. Not overly critical but not the gushing 5* review that some people seem to think Brickset give everything.

(I missed out on the survey, but the goat/sloth thing - it was amusing for a while, but maybe give it a rest now?). Just my $0.02

Thanks for the efforts, and asking for feedback. I am a bit surprised to read that generally only sets are reviewed that you like. What about the other sets? Would they be deemed impopular anyway?
E.g. I'm not a big fan of mech sets, but I'm sure many others will be.

Maybe on scoring, not specific out of 5 scores but more a set of scales (red to green fade) for certain items ie enjoyment of build, display value, play value to go alongside the pros and cons? @huw

I’ve seen the goats, but where are the reviews with sloths?! My 3yr old loves sloths, but I didn’t know that animal existed in LEGO.

Although I was one of the people to say that they would like review scores, to play devil's advocate for a minute, people tend to just scroll down to the score at the end and ignore the rest of the article.

Maybe a one-word rating could work? Nah, I think that devalues the article itself too much...

There was a games magazine in the UK in the 90s (Amiga Power) that had a bit of a crusade about how ratings were seen as the only part of reviews, complaining that in practice when rating using %age scores the actual range went from about 50-100% and half the rating scales never used (which made their reviews look like outliers.

I think their final issue also dealt with the problem of people only reading the summary box as they happened to have a terrible game to review and gave it a 99% score and an excellent summary and then noted that this was all a joke in the body of the text.

I can make my own mind up from the full text of any review. It's sometimes just interesting to compare an overall rating along with supporting comments as it helps to rationalise if I will likely feel the same as the reviewer.

As an example of a movie review if they said the dialogue, casting, costumes, cinematography, colour grading and sound were all bad. But said the effects, pacing and action sequences were great and they found it fun and gave it 4 stars I'd know probably not to bother with that reviewers opinions in future.

Thanks for all of this, Huw and team!

On the subject of ratings and comparisons to other sets, I think one suggestion is to help readers understand how a given set compares to a similar model from a previous wave or a different theme. This can especially apply to Technic in recent years as the set lineups are quite comparable (price points, pullbacks, the cars that fit on the hauler, etc.). A statement like "the functionality of this set seemed lacking for Technic, and at this price point, we'd be much more likely to recommend [Technic set number] from last year's lineup, which you can still purchase at Amazon [link]. You can see our review for that set here [link]."

(Very helpful for those of us on a LEGO budget that want to make an as informed purchase as possible. :D )

@jkb said:
"Okay, I'm curious: What do people find interesting about photos of parts bags?
This isn't me being negative but a serious question, I really want to know."

If brickset is the resource of LEGO sets, new and old ones, I would love to find out about bags in the set as well. Even if there a production run variants it might help to know about variants.

For a collector I will be a fundamental information if you want to check the completeness of an open set with sealed bags.

Will see how it might work in the future with pager bags?

Or it should be a database field for a set entry listing the type and numbers (and variants) of bags in a set.

@Huw focusing on new parts without a provided inventory must not be super accurate but could reflect more the reviewer's impression. Maybe called noteworthy parts then ...

@OneIsLit said:
"Since the comments about goats and sloths was "divided," perhaps the reviews including goats and slots should be similarly divided? I.e. sometimes include them, and sometimes don't. That way, the people who are annoyed by them do not need to be annoyed when reading every single review; and the people who love them, will still get to see them? Perhaps it is just the reviews I choose to read, but it seems like the sloths have a pretty high appearance rate, whereas the goats are somewhere in the middle.
"

The sloths are more frequent, appearing in every Friends review

I feel like more critical reviews could be welcome, but also a source of trouble that might not be wise to invite. Disagreements in the comments have become aggressively passionate and the LEGO doomsayers jump on to any sign of negativity to proclaim the downfall of the company. Nuanced reviews won't get nuanced reception, at least not in their comments. Not the fault of the website, but still a concern.

The sloths and goats aren't a joke that amuses me, but as long as they're not played up past their current implementation, I don't really mind them.

As far as comparison photos go, I'm not interested as much as inter-model comparisons, but I think non-LEGO objects with a standard size like a pencil or apple could be helpful at establishing the sizes of sets. Anything within the LEGO system tends to distort scale for me, personally, so non-LEGO items could be helpful at conveying size of sets.

I appreciate the calls for feedback and plans for action.

I don't understand the problem with scoring a set. Scoring a review is one of the most common review methods in existence, from hotels to movies to Lego sets. When I read a review from X I don't take what they're saying as facts, but opinions, which I care for otherwise I wouldn't read it. Scoring a set is the bottom line of that opinion, and there's no reason to "hide" it. Either you think a set is good or bad, is it worth it or not. Otherwise, it's just expended press release with better photos. If you really want to avoid a score, there are other alternatives such as "You should buy it if x/y/z and you should not buy it if x/y/z".

@Huw said:
" @elangab said:
""Several of you think our reviews are too positive. I don't think that's likely to change"

I don't understand that statement. How do you know for sure you'll 5-stars love future sets?

This makes it not reviews, but photo overviews of sets that you like. I find it a bit off. We all love Lego here, but we shouldn't be afraid to critic when needed or to point faults, and i find it hard to believe you love 99% of the sets Lego produce."

I'd be interested to know whether my review https://brickset.com/article/67630/review-42137-formula-e-porsche-99x-electric is considered to be positive or negative?

If I were giving it a rating it would have been 2/5 but I did find things I liked about it."

What it took from reading the article is that you don't recommend buying the set and even though some things are nice the bottom line is to skip it. Having said that, even when originally reading it I remember being surprised as this is the exception to the rule. Rating it 2/5 is a quick "at a glance" way to sum it up.

But what was weird for me was the prediction, I follow other sites for other hobbies I have and I've yet to read something like - "Expect all our video games review to be positive because we love video games". Maybe 2022's lineup will amazing, maybe it will suck, who knows?

Just curious, what are you looking for in reviews as a reader? For non Lego products or services? Don't you find a final score easier to sum up what the reviewer thinks? I agree that we shouldn't scroll down, look at the number and leave, but it's a valid and proved tool.

@fakespacesquid said:
" @elangab said:
""Several of you think our reviews are too positive. I don't think that's likely to change"

I don't understand that statement. How do you know for sure you'll 5-stars love future sets?"

That's not how I read it at all, I understood it as "we won't start to be purposefully more negative than we would have before." Some people in the comments aren't happy unless you're taking a baseball bat to any set that isn't a 10/10"

Could be I didn't understand it correctly then. My idea was not to drop by with a baseball bat, but to not be afraid to use it if needed. Every review should start with a clean slate - not positive, not negative (as much as humanly possible of course, we're all a bit biased and that's fine) and allow the product or service to speak for itself.

@elangab said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @elangab said:
""Several of you think our reviews are too positive. I don't think that's likely to change"

I don't understand that statement. How do you know for sure you'll 5-stars love future sets?"

That's not how I read it at all, I understood it as "we won't start to be purposefully more negative than we would have before." Some people in the comments aren't happy unless you're taking a baseball bat to any set that isn't a 10/10"

Could be I didn't understand it correctly then. My idea was not to drop by with a baseball bat, but to not be afraid to use it if needed. Every review should start with a clean slate - not positive, not negative (as much as humanly possible of course, we're all a bit biased and that's fine) and allow the product or service to speak for itself."

I haven't seen Brickset be afraid to use the baseball bat as needed. If anything, reviews typically lean towards factual/neutral/professional as opposed to gushingly positive or negative. The issue is some people are asking for more negative reviews (as if positive or neutral reviews are dishonest), and Huw is explaining that they won't go negative for the sake of going negative. I haven't seen an issue with a set that wasn't called out in a review.

@Kirrrstennnn said:
"Just wanted to say I love CapnRex101's reviews.

"

A big +1 from my side!

Really like the idea of the summary box.
Like someone else said, can't understand why people would want pics of the individual bags. Anyway all new sets should all gradually be changing to paper bags.

@Huw said:
" @elangab said:
""Several of you think our reviews are too positive. I don't think that's likely to change"

I don't understand that statement. How do you know for sure you'll 5-stars love future sets?"

What I meant by that is we don't go looking for 'bad' sets to review, or those we don't like, we just won't bother.

We direct the sets offered to us at the most appropriate person. It's no good me doing Star Wars or Friends for example when we have reviewers who are more likely to appreciate them thus write more positive reviews.

We'll be negative when needed, e.g. when reviewing the atrocious 75201 ( https://brickset.com/article/33622/review-75201-first-order-at-st ) of course!

"

That makes a bit more sense, and it's good to pass the set to a reviewer who is more knowledgeable of a specific theme, that way they can easily spot the faults or problems compared to other sets from the same theme.

You don't need to actively look for bad sets, you just need to go after sets you're interested in and see if they turned out to be good or not and offer a recommendation.

@elangab said:
" @Huw said:
" @elangab said:
""Several of you think our reviews are too positive. I don't think that's likely to change"

I don't understand that statement. How do you know for sure you'll 5-stars love future sets?"

What I meant by that is we don't go looking for 'bad' sets to review, or those we don't like, we just won't bother.

We direct the sets offered to us at the most appropriate person. It's no good me doing Star Wars or Friends for example when we have reviewers who are more likely to appreciate them thus write more positive reviews.

We'll be negative when needed, e.g. when reviewing the atrocious 75201 ( https://brickset.com/article/33622/review-75201-first-order-at-st ) of course!

"

That makes a bit more sense, and it's good to pass the set to a reviewer who is more knowledgeable of a specific theme, that way they can easily spot the faults or problems compared to other sets from the same theme.

You don't need to actively look for bad sets, you just need to go after sets you're interested in and see if they turned out to be good or not and offer a recommendation."

That's exactly what HUW said they do in the summary...

"I don't think that's likely to change, not because we are obliged to write good reviews for sets we are sent (we aren't), but because we are first and foremost LEGO fans and generally only review sets that we like."

I'm glad we were asked for feedback. I think the summary box sounds good. Perhaps some standard questions used each time could be included, something like "did you enjoy building this" or "what did you think of the attention to details in this set", and for sets which are LEGO versions of real things or licensed properties "is this a good representation of the source material". I think that would be a lot better than numerical ratings.

Another take on review scores:

Score systems can be misused by readers (eg compare different themes or sizes of sets), this is known and happens every time a score is used in other sites.

BUT a big difference in Brickset is that each Set is reviewed by a single reviewer. While most score systems apply an average to scores given by many users OR a few reviewers.

I think the only way it would be reasonable to include a score would be for all reviewers to give a score to each reviewed set and show the average.
I doubt though that Brickset reviewers have time for such extra burden.
And I also don't see a great benefit of such score.

There is already a score system in Brickset, it's the average of scores by users. It's presented for each set, but this only works for sets that are already several months in retail and users evaluate those sets.

I want to add something about the comparison photos.

As mentioned by you Huw these are important to many people and I want to second this. It’s especially those references to old, predecessor or comparable sets (or your knowledge base in other words) which kept me coming back for interesting reviews. It proves that you have a strong and long track record in reviewing, something not many other sites can offer and those comparisons represent what makes the Brickset reviews very believable and informative.

In contrast, new parts or mold variations I rather expect to be highlighted in detail by sites like Rebrickable. But clearly every interesting information is welcome.

"CapnRex101's ... are clearly- and well- written, and reading them often has an educational value beyond learning about the set."

I must admit I tend to read both your (Huw) and CapnRex101's reviews, even if they are about sets I have no interest in.

I love the sloths and goats in the reviews. how else would I have known Lego made so many colors? I had to get them for my granddaughter. well, she is 23 but loves sloths. some of you need a sense of humor. =)

Pericombobulations indeed. Now I'm counting goats.
I can see the point of awarding a score, it's part and parcel of a review and you guys are probably, in your thoroughness, just covering all the bases. I will myself be swayed either way, if at all, by the text of the review. I personally don't think you need to change anything and the difference in tones between the reviewers just makes it more interesting. I get that you only tend to review the sets that interest you, I only tend to read about the ones that interest me!

@jkb said:
"Okay, I'm curious: What do people find interesting about photos of parts bags?
This isn't me being negative but a serious question, I really want to know."

Sometimes, you may get an open box set, with all the parts. That's a great way to compare if you have everything. Or even if you get it at a retailer and you suspect something's missing.

I have always considered the reviews to be overly positive. Everything is wow and happy happy joy joy. The occasional set with a 'lesser' review is hard to come by.

I think the argument 'we review what we like' and 'the lesser sets tend to the boring ones anyway' is truly cutting corners. Even a fan should keep in mind to be mindful of the pitfall of never calibrating his standards.
'We are all fans of Lego' honestly can't be the adagium to go by for setting a 'whatever' quality bar. I think the article on the 'unseparable' AT-AT bricks just prove this juxtaposition of all is good but sometimes we have to play bad cop as well.

I consider the reviews to be browse through image galleries with a diagonal read.

There is a thin line between fan and fanboy. Brickset reviews more often than not belong among the ones written by the latter.

@Brick_Master said:
"..to reinforce my point "I can't help thinking that it doesn't look like it's worth the asking price of £44.99 / $49.99 / 49.99€, particularly when compared to other similarly priced sets such as 42106 Stunt Show Truck & Bike adn 42122 Jeep Wrangler. It's not yet listed at Amazon, but I'm sure once it is it'll be reduced soon after to something more reasonable. If you can't wait, then it's available at LEGO.com now."
I invite anyone to find any other site for any products in any industry that a) receives products for free to review and b) is dependent on a single company, that will publish a review that says 1) this product isn't really worth buying and 2) if you must buy it, wait for a discount from a third party retailer...
I feel very passionate about how great this site is and hope it never changes :)
PS: it also reflects positively on the Lego Group that they continue to send you products to review without pressure for 100% positive reviews. "

Without taking anything from Brickset, and just as a reply to your comment, there are quite a few, even if you trim it down to just Lego. True North Brick is one of them as an example. As I understand it, most known and proven Lego fan sites at least are being offered a free review copy, it's not unique to Brickset. They're not "dependent" on Lego, they can always just go and buy the set for review. Some took this route, like Jang. I also follow some tech sites that handing out low score for a review hardware they got, such as laptops and phones. I don't think that writing fake positive reviews to get free stuff is that common as you think it is, most reviewers (and especially when your site grows in popularity) will be true to their opinion.

@jkb said:
"Okay, I'm curious: What do people find interesting about photos of parts bags?
This isn't me being negative but a serious question, I really want to know."

Personally, when I'm buying a retired set that's advertised as "New, unopened bags, opened box" I can check against an image on here of the set and verify that it should have x number of bags and x number of parts not in bags.
I've actually used that before buying a set advertised in that way due to the usual cheaper price for opened box new sets.

@Mr__Thrawn said:
" @Watsonite said:
"I have always considered the reviews to be overly positive. Everything is wow and happy happy joy joy. The occasional set with a 'lesser' review is hard to come by.

I think the argument 'we review what we like' and 'the lesser sets tend to the boring ones anyway' is truly cutting corners. Even a fan should keep in mind to be mindful of the pitfall of never calibrating his standards.
'We are all fans of Lego' honestly can't be the adagium to go by for setting a 'whatever' quality bar. I think the article on the 'unseparable' AT-AT bricks just prove this juxtaposition of all is good but sometimes we have to play bad cop as well.

I consider the reviews to be browse through image galleries with a diagonal read.

There is a thin line between fan and fanboy. Brickset reviews more often than not belong among the ones written by the latter."

I really don’t understand this perspective. There’s no real reason IMO for there to be a normal-curve distribution of opinions in Brickset reviews for a few reasons:

A) Sets provided for review by LEGO/ purchased by Brickset reviewers are likely to be those that will appeal to Brickset’s audience. Therefore, many Brickset reviews will focus on higher-end, generally well-regarded sets. It doesn’t really make sense to opine that the “worst” modular building, for example, is a terrible set and not worth your time, because it’s only bad relative to other modular buildings. Also, those sets that would be judged as “bad” by AFOLs are usually those that would hold little interest for AFOLs, so aren’t reviewed, because the reviewers and audience are both disinterested in them.

B) Generally, as CapnRex101 mentioned above, the majority of LEGO sets are good, at least in the opinion of the Brickset staff.

C) LEGO is expensive. Some sets are provided by LEGO, but many are purchased by the Brickset staff, and it wouldn’t make much sense for someone with no interest in a set or theme to spend $100 or so on said set or theme just for the sake of a perceived balance of opinion."

A. Brickset aims at cataloguing everything Lego and Lego-related. So why try to be the reference in non-official Lego-sites as was mentioned in an article not long ago when you don't commit to your own goals in reviewing the things you are cataloguing? It is clear that not all items can be reviewed and user reviews complement that gap, but as the site itself, some more diversity as well as realistic reviews could only be of clear benefit. It sometimes seems as if Brickset is following its own Facebook or Netflix generated algorithm.

B. This is circular reasoning since the argument we are discussing here is used as an argument itself.

C. True, Lego is expensive but this is exactly the reasoning that shouldn't be the goal. Just the fact that 'they do all the effort and pay for some sets themselves' isn't a reason to be not honest and critical for those sets. When comparing with other websites that for example review movies, try out recipes, review books, review tourist attractions, all of those people take the time and effort of investing but that doesn't make them at least 'like' everyhing they review. Just because Lego is such a giant and an expensive one for that matter, should make for them to at least expect some respectable flack. 'Most sets are good' just cements someone on their high horse.

@Huw said:
"We (reviewers) have been discussing and, to be honest, disagreeing about providing ratings.

I think they could provide an at-a-glance indication of what we think of a particular set but CapnRex101 rightly points out that:

--people tend to quibble on scores and that can derail the comments
--people comparing scores between sets where comparison is really not fair. For instance, I can recall several small sets which have no real issues, so it would be difficult to give them less than full marks, while every larger set has something tiny to take issue with, in my experience, so they might not get full marks
-- people complaining that we gave a set 5/5, even when we found some minor issues. They might ask how we can give a perfect score to a set which is not perfect.

I think that if taken in isolation as an indication of the what the reviewer thought of the set in question they have some use but as it's vrtually impossible to compare sets as it is, say, 40" televisions, they can't be used comparatively, but people may read them as such.
"

I don't believe a score is necessary. I always look forward to CapnRex's reviews (as a Star Wars and Harry Potter collector) and see what he likes, or dislikes, about a set.
Scoring a set doesn't really add anything to a review, in my opinion. Just a good read, with some photos, is more than enough.
Folks will never agree anyway. The comments in the advent calendar reviews prove that.

@Watsonite said:
" @Mr__Thrawn said:
" @Watsonite said:
"I have always considered the reviews to be overly positive. Everything is wow and happy happy joy joy. The occasional set with a 'lesser' review is hard to come by.

I think the argument 'we review what we like' and 'the lesser sets tend to the boring ones anyway' is truly cutting corners. Even a fan should keep in mind to be mindful of the pitfall of never calibrating his standards.
'We are all fans of Lego' honestly can't be the adagium to go by for setting a 'whatever' quality bar. I think the article on the 'unseparable' AT-AT bricks just prove this juxtaposition of all is good but sometimes we have to play bad cop as well.

I consider the reviews to be browse through image galleries with a diagonal read.

There is a thin line between fan and fanboy. Brickset reviews more often than not belong among the ones written by the latter."

I really don’t understand this perspective. There’s no real reason IMO for there to be a normal-curve distribution of opinions in Brickset reviews for a few reasons:

A) Sets provided for review by LEGO/ purchased by Brickset reviewers are likely to be those that will appeal to Brickset’s audience. Therefore, many Brickset reviews will focus on higher-end, generally well-regarded sets. It doesn’t really make sense to opine that the “worst” modular building, for example, is a terrible set and not worth your time, because it’s only bad relative to other modular buildings. Also, those sets that would be judged as “bad” by AFOLs are usually those that would hold little interest for AFOLs, so aren’t reviewed, because the reviewers and audience are both disinterested in them.

B) Generally, as CapnRex101 mentioned above, the majority of LEGO sets are good, at least in the opinion of the Brickset staff.

C) LEGO is expensive. Some sets are provided by LEGO, but many are purchased by the Brickset staff, and it wouldn’t make much sense for someone with no interest in a set or theme to spend $100 or so on said set or theme just for the sake of a perceived balance of opinion."

A. Brickset aims at cataloguing everything Lego and Lego-related. So why try to be the reference in non-official Lego-sites as was mentioned in an article not long ago when you don't commit to your own goals in reviewing the things you are cataloguing? It is clear that not all items can be reviewed and user reviews complement that gap, but as the site itself, some more diversity as well as realistic reviews could only be of clear benefit. It sometimes seems as if Brickset is following its own Facebook or Netflix generated algorithm.

B. This is circular reasoning since the argument we are discussing here is used as an argument itself.

C. True, Lego is expensive but this is exactly the reasoning that shouldn't be the goal. Just the fact that 'they do all the effort and pay for some sets themselves' isn't a reason to be not honest and critical for those sets. When comparing with other websites that for example review movies, try out recipes, review books, review tourist attractions, all of those people take the time and effort of investing but that doesn't make them at least 'like' everyhing they review. Just because Lego is such a giant and an expensive one for that matter, should make for them to at least expect some respectable flack. 'Most sets are good' just cements someone on their high horse."

The difference with movies and books is that it’s far easier to consume more of them. As a film fan, I saw 45 new releases this year and 331 films total. As a LEGO fan, I only accumulated 15 new sets. Even if you spend more reviewing books or films in the long run, the initial entry price of a movie ticket or most books is lower than the price of the average LEGO set. I’ll also note that even user ratings on Brickset are much higher than those on other websites. The highest rated entries on Letterboxd and

I couldn't find the time to fill in the survey, but I think the consensus is broadly what I would've leaned towards in any case. Referring to the debate in the comments:

1. @CapnRex101 - your reviews are splendid. Excellent. Superb. Outstanding. I love your use of words.
2. Parts bags? Really? Ok then...
3. Positivity of reviews: I sometimes have to use a bit of translation when I read Brickset reviews. If Huw thinks a step is 'a little bit awkward' I know I'd consider it a right pain in the arse. If CapnRex thinks a minifig is 'a little lacklustre' it means it hasn't got the details quite right according to the on-screen look, and I don't worry about it any more than that. An example of where he goes to town on the crappiness of the minifig is in the 75975 review (Watchpoint: Gibraltar) - Mercy does not look right. Overall though I think they give the right amount of opinion and pure information, and it's why I keep coming back for more reviews.
4: Rating numbers: I don't use them for any analysis as it's all so subjective. The 'overall' summary box might be useful - depends what's in it.

Thanks guys for asking us though - it's a brave move to be honest.

I'll just say thank you again to Huw and all of the Brickset staff! Even though my online Lego and AFOL participation is solely on Instagram now besides this website, I'm on Brickset.com 5 days a week at least, and many times a day occasionally. Your database of sets, minifigures, parts, etc. is so invaluable! Thank you for all of the time and effort and detail you put in to the site to help Lego fans.

@SMC said:
"People saying pictures of the set under construction in a review are spoilers is a bit like people complaining that a film trailer contains footage of the film.

If you don't want to know about the build don't read the review and if you just want to see pictures of the finished model head to the Lego website or the set page on brickset.

Pictures of the set under construction are the thing that is most important to me along with the reviewer having knowledge of the subject matter. Because I often learn things from Cap and Huw and I like to hear their views on the accuracy of the given set."

That’s exactly why I don’t read reviews of sets I plan on buying until I buy them. That goes only for sets I definitely plan on buying. I like being surprised by new parts/colors so I don’t even look too hard at pics once revealed. As in I don’t dissect every inch of the photos. But some sets that I’m on the fence on or would like to buy but not sure I’ll get to, I’ll read them.

"Our different styles of reviews were commented on, with some people suggesting that CapnRex101's work was too verbose and often used 'obscure or big words', while others praised his 'outstanding attention to detail'. Personally I do not agree with the negativity: they are clearly- and well- written, and reading them often has an educational value beyond learning about the set. I like the fact that we all write in different styles, it keeps them interesting, and I am not proposing to change this."

I for one love it when writing is flowery and poetic, so I'd love to see more of this. Rex has a tendency to nerd out, especially when it comes to Star Wars, and it's always fun to delve into his insights.

"Information and photos of the source material was mentioned by a few people. I generally add them if I'm reviewing licensed Technic models, if only so that I know what it's supposed to look like, but we'll also look to include pictures of Star Wars ships or whatever, when we can."

I personally like this best when comparing minifigures to their source material, and I think it would help people get behind things like Mario Characters Series 4. A fun offshoot would be comparing LEGO original designs to LEGO original sets (the 2012 Great Devourer set looks nothing like it does in the TV show, for example) but y'all tend to upload reviews long before and videogame or show content comes out so that'd be difficult to pull off. On the flipside, a lot of those images could have licensing issues to skirt around, and that could cause problems.

This has nothing to do with the reviews, but I feel that if we are to have summaries at the top with pros and cons (which is a great idea), then it would be great to prominently display this box on the sets page without having to click the review tab.

Say 5 years from now I consider getting a set that has been retired, I always check Brickset to see if it’s worth the investment and this box would be very helpful.

@mfg3000 said:
"Thank YOU for the feedback on our feedback!

I'm really looking forward to seeing what CapnRex101's signature animal/creature will be:)"

Thank YOU for the feed back of their feed back of your feed back ;)

I love the goats and sloths, the sloths fit so well with the Friends colours too.

Would be curious to know how many different animals lego has produced and in how many different colours.