| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft writes:
> > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > It's very interesting. I think it's even more amazing that this figure (by
> > > their own account) does not include pieces that are parts of sets. So is
> > > this figure purely bulk bricks? That represents only one menu off their
> > > products list on the sidebar of the site. How much other stuff is going off
> > > the shipping docks if that's the #'s for bulk bricks. Wow.
> >
> > I think the clarifying statement that Lego has made about this number is
> > actually confusing the issue.
> >
> > "Pieces sold on LEGOshop.com since Nov. 1, 2002!"
> >
> > "Piece count reflects individual pieces sold and not complete sets"
> >
> > I took this to mean they were adding up the pieces, Lego Elements, in
> > every set they sold. The term "piece" is often used to indicate a
> > single item that is for sale. "We sold 50 pieces of that item." Under
> > this interpretation a piece would be a set because that is the item for
> > sale. So I think they are trying to differentiate between "piece" the
> > set, and "piece" the Lego element with this disclaimer.
>
> Well why didn't they *say* that then. :)
I totally agree with you. I think it's not very well worded and can be
interpreted several ways. Whether that was deliberate so that readers would
read in what they wanted to... who can say. One would hope not, eh?
>
> O.K. I guess I was reading into the statement only what I wanted it to mean,
> rather than what it might really mean. But it does point out how tricky
> semantics can be.
>
> What I thought it meant was, "this is the total number of individual pieces
> sold (i.e. bulk bricks) and this number does not include pieces that are
> part of complete sets."
>
> When really what they mean to say is, "this is the total number of bricks we
> have sold overall, including bulk bricks and individual pieces that comprise
> complete sets. It does not represent the number of sets sold."
>
> Clarity is a wonderful thing... though often difficult to obtain with the
> English language.
Agreed. One wonders if perhaps the writer wasn't a native English speaker?
Some of the stuff on the site does sometimes have a bit of an unusual turn
of phrase, eh?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brick Counter
|
| (...) I'm leaning more towards the idea that it wasn't a deliberate attempt to deceive. There's really no reason to inflate sales figures to the public... the boss always knows. :) But while doing the dishes tonight I got thinking about this again. (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Brick Counter
|
| (...) Well why didn't they *say* that then. :) O.K. I guess I was reading into the statement only what I wanted it to mean, rather than what it might really mean. But it does point out how tricky semantics can be. What I thought it meant was, (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
