Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:03:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Andrew Cross wrote:
> Ok, Lego does its own job of hosting instructions at:
> http://www.lego.com/eng/buildinginstructions/
>
> If TLG was funding BrickShelf, I can see why they would drop this duplicate
> expense.
As Joe said, I don't think the issue would be with the instructions themselves--
plus, the gallery is what generates the heaping swaths of traffic from what I
understand. Not that the instructions don't generate their own heaping swath,
it's just less heaping. I just doubt the savings would be that noticeable.
> What instructions on BrickShelf are not duplicates of the TLG ones?
As answered, not many duplicates relative to the number BrickShelf has.
BrickShelf has a lot more historical instructions, whereas TLC's site is just
more recent stuff.
> Is TLG committed to keeping theirs online?
That's the big problem. Sure, TLC might think it's nifty for now, but going
forward? And integrating with other fan sites? Tough. There's nothing to stop
them from changing the formatting, interface, urls, etc. Plus, what's the
inscentive for them to retro-fill instructions historically? There's not really
any money in it, so why bother? At least if they sell currently available sets
they can avoid sending *some* replacement instructions by saying "these are
available on our website".
The community, however, is much more dedicated to getting accurate historical
records for their own sake.
Kinda like that old Fibblesnork survey question: 'How would you rate the
official Lego website?' One of the answers was 'It will never be as good as fan
sites' or something. It's just true. There's always some fan out there who's got
more dedication to the hobby than the company itself does. And since the Lego
community consists of people who are both creative and constructive by the very
NATURE of the hobby, I've always thought Lego's ultimately doomed to never have
as good of a site as fan sites. Lego COULD do it, but there's just no business
case, so it's often just best left to fans.
> Can peeron.com legally link to lego.com pdf's instead?
I don't think it'd be a question of legality, but feasibility. Certainly Lego
could force referers to be coming from lego.com, change their URLs, or whatever.
But even more annoying, even *WITH* consistant URLs, there's no way to tell when
updates have been made (versus BrickShelf where I think there was some automatic
checking to verify that BrickShelf *HAS* the instructions before Peeron shows
the link).
Plus, there's not necessarily a good concept of "set ID". Like set 6075, which
could be Wolfpack Tower or the original yellow castle. Lego.com would need a
rapport with fan sites that it doesn't have. The fan community on the other
hand, generally has a good rapport with itself. The Lego ID may be totally
different, and not on record with Lugnet/Peeron/BrickSet/BrickLink.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
| Ok, Lego does its own job of hosting instructions at: (URL) TLG was funding BrickShelf, I can see why they would drop this duplicate expense. My questions are: What instructions on BrickShelf are not duplicates of the TLG ones? Is TLG committed to (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.general)
|
125 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
