| |
In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
> But after taking a quick peek at Gizmodo, it looks like they put a decent
> amount of effort into it (working with LEGO?). It definitely is a shame they
> didn't get it more accurate.
Yeah, it's obvious they put time into it-- all those pictures were seemingly
done themselves, not some sort of stock photos or anything. And they obviously
spent some time at least trying to do some research.
I guess my natural assumption would be that anyone that actually spent that much
time doing research would quickly realize the massive scope of the project and
decide to limit it in some way.
The more I think about it, I'll bet the people doing the compilation are
different from whoever did the writing blurb. So there must've been some sort of
miscommunication about the completeness and accuracy of the collection. I can't
honestly believe that anyone who spent as much time as they clearly did making
the mistake of calling it "almost every minifig" (since 1/8 isn't almost
complete by any standard I know of).
> They should have worked with you, Gary Istok, or some other senior (as in
> experience, not age!) LEGO collector instead.
Yeah, my guess is it wasn't a whole-hearted attempt on Lego's part, considering
the omissions. And you can't really blame them, since it's not a project that's
going to make them money (just publicity, which they've already got from
Gizmodo).
Ah well. Here's hoping that if they DO do it again, or attempt to fix what
they've got, that they take the time to do it correctly-- or at least describe
the project more appropriately.
It would be interesting to get a compilation, though. I think you could probably
tie in BrickLink data to get an excellent start on it, since they often have
release years with figs. A few things don't, like the odd promo figs:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?M=redsox
But with a bit of research, you could probably get even the anomalies pretty
well fleshed out.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego minifig timeline
|
| (...) Before looking at it, I thought it would be a typical "newspaper-type" article (i.e. poorly written, incomplete research, etc.). But after taking a quick peek at Gizmodo, it looks like they put a decent amount of effort into it (working with (...) (16 years ago, 31-Oct-08, to lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
