Subject:
|
Re: New Part: x727 - Trailer 4 x 16 Ramp
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:22:33 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2134 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Tore Eriksson writes:
> I am very, very sorry for my childish overreaction to your relevant comments.
> It just happened to be you who brought the last straw...
> lcad0201:
> 2. 3010p20b.dat
> Old part by me, improved by CWD
> 3. 3010p20c.dat
> Old part by me, improved by CWD
> 4. 3010p20w.dat
> Old part by me, improved by CWD
IIRC, part of what I did to these was to add the type 2 line inside the thin
pattern rectangles and subjugate the pattern to subfile. These are techniques
that proboably did not exist when you made the original part, so there is
absolutely no reason why you should feel bad about this.
> Secondly, I promised James to concentrate most on very old LEGO parts. I
> guess not many reviewers own these very rare parts and thus are able to
> review them.
Yes, this is a bit of a problem (cf. my x778, x779, x791). Is there some way
that such parts could be highlighted for priority review or review by certain
reviewers? Or even allow review by fewer people - under the old voting system,
a part with 1 YES and 20 ABSTAINs would still have got through.
With so many parts on the tracker (a good thing, actually), I find it difficult
to prioritise my review time. Each time I have time to do some reviewing, I
start at the top of the the list, and each time there are more and more I have
to skip over because I don't have the part. If there were some way to filter
the review list so as to include only those I had not commented on, I could
just add "novote" entries to those I am unable to review, and my "to do" list
would shrink.
Maybe the parts list be sorted in "submit time" order, rather then alphabetic.
That way the longest waiting files would get greater exposure? I'm not sure
there is great benefit in the alphabetic order anyway.
All said, I do think that we are in a better position WITH the parts tracker
than without.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Part: x727 - Trailer 4 x 16 Ramp
|
| (...) Hmm. I'm not sure. My first thought is "honorary reviewers" or "era specialists". If you know of people who've got the parts in question, and they are willing to spend some time reviewing them, we can certainly take their input. Even if they (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | Re: New Part: x727 - Trailer 4 x 16 Ramp
|
| In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Chris Dee writes: ( (URL) ) (...) I don't feel bad about improvements made to my old files. That's not my point. But I feel worse and worse about my parts submitted back in March 2002: <Long background> In (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Part: x727 - Trailer 4 x 16 Ramp
|
| I am very, very sorry for my childish overreaction to your relevant comments. It just happened to be you who brought the last straw... (...) My parts do have problems. Let's have a look at the occurance of my name in the updates lcad0103, 0201, and (...) (23 years ago, 28-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
