| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Suzanne Rich Green wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Gerhard R. Istok wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I do hope that Lugnet maintains some sort of existence
> > into the future, including the Lugnet database.
> >
> > In finishing up the final tidbits for my Lego CD I have been working on now for
> > nearly 3 years, I am just about to the point where I can account for all Lego
> > sets and parts since 1949. I am hoping to share this info with Lugnet, Peeron
> > and Bricklink within the next 6 months. I am hoping to have Clark Stephens
> > (Lugnet and Peeron DB Admin) on board for this endeavor. I have been showing
> > him and a few others some of the "Lego Mayhem" from the 1950's and 1960's in
> > Lego sets and parts. Some items have alpha part numbers, others come in up to
> > 12 language versions. And a few items don't exist at all (except in catalog
> > pictures), not even in the Billund Vault.
> >
> > So I was hoping that Lugnet-Peeron-Bricklink become the central repository for
> > all Lego knowledge in the known universe..... :-)
That would be great! :-)
>
> (^_^) I can't tell you how excited the thought of this makes me. The LUGNET DB
> has always been my fav online project. I love working on it, and ever since the
> LouZ's Pause pages, I've loved browsing through old LEGO sets!
>
> [BTW, the LUGNET DB is not in any danger of going away. It never was. Someone
> recently expressed confusion on that, and so I hope that's clear now.]
It should go without saying that we on the BrickLink Catalog refer to the Lugnet
database regularly for verification of submissions and other questions and are
happy to hear it will continue to exist.
>
> For a long (loooong) time now, I've wanted to see many of our projects, like
> LUGNET, Peeron, BrickLink, BrickSet, Minimundo, et.al., have closer cohesion for
> users via a new and more detailed interface. Users could, for instance, see a
> set's piece-count as stated at various sites displayed in one field of view.
> Imagine how cool it would be to have an inset thumbnail gallery of everyone's
> pictures of the same set. We could avoid redundancy that way and spot holes to
> fill. LUGNET alone has many additional shots of sets which are not viewable
> through the current page display (i.e., box shots, catalog scans from diff
> nations, multiple official set-up shots by TLC, parts spreads, instruct front
> pages, etc). Hoh, now we could even add 3-D set viewing!
>
> I'd also like it to be simpler for people to note corrections effectively and
> contribute additional information (not so simple that mistakes become abundant,
> but certainly easier than it is now for the LUGNET DB.) Some of us (I, for one),
> have been sitting on more data than we've ever had time to enter. It would be
> great if the small efforts of many people would combine toward a more "Complete"
> LUGNET Database.
This would also be very cool.
I should also mention that it isn't just the database that has been invaluable.
We regularly have questions or need to verify details about obscure parts or
sets and by doing a Lugnet newssearch we've been able to come up with useful
info an amazing percentage of the time-- much of it is from information either
Gary or Clark has posted here at some time. I'm sure they'll be glad to know it
has saved us from having to contact them and pester them for info! :D
And this is OT for .db but aside from their usefulness as a history of
observations many people have made over time about certain parts or sets, some
old news posts are fascinating to go back and read. AFOL participation in the
hobby has evolved and Lugnet members have gone through lots of changes over the
past several years and much of it is chronicled in the news messages. I hope
this archive will continue to be accessible.
Anyway, Suz, as they say in Japan, Gambatte!
Maggie C.
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
