Subject:
|
Re: Sorting strategies [was: Re: Rebel Blockade Runner . . . Holy Moly ! !]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.storage
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 May 2002 00:02:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4929 times
|
| |
|
|
William R Ward wrote:
>
> Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> writes:
> > William R Ward wrote:
> > > > The key to efficient sorting is lots of compartments, and regularity
> > > > is good. My "small plates" tray, a 24 compartment Advent Calendar
> > > > tray, can be used almost without sight since I've trained my hands
> > > > to know which bin is which - this tray has compartments for almost
> > > > every small special plate and tile (though the ones which still go
> > > > in 3700 Plano boxes all go into one compartment).
> > >
> > > I don't think this is necessary for efficient sorting. I just pick
> > > out a handful of pieces of a given type, then put them in their bin,
> > > and then a handful of pieces of either the same or a slightly
> > > different type, and repeat.
> > >
> > > But then, I'm not as meticulous about sorting as some people. I do
> > > not make any effort, as a general rule, to put only identical pieces
> > > together. I sort all of my LEGO into only 21 drawers (plus four Plano
> > > boxes for the Technic bits):
> >
> > Obviously you have a much smaller collection. Believe me, the sorting
> > problem gets worse as you get more pieces. To get an idea, I'll try and
> > relate how much of each of your 21 bins I have...
> [snip inventory of huge collection]
>
> If my collection was as big as you describe, I would probably still
> have only 21 (or a similar number) categories. Each category might
> correspond to a stack of bins, though (Probably each ziplock in my
> current collection would correspond to a small-medium bin or large
> bag). I'd have a collection in active use about the same size of my
> current collection, or maybe up to double that. Everything else would
> be stored or "warehoused" if you like, in a garage or storage locker
> or something. When I run out of something, I'd restock; if I got too
> many of something, I'd move some to storage. There's no need to have
> everything at your fingertips with a collection that large.
Ok, what wasn't quite so obvious was the sub-dividing you were doing. I
agree that there is some modest number of global categories of parts.
I'd pick a different set than your 21, but the number does depend
somewhat on what you tend to build, somewhat on how your mind
categorizes certain parts, and somewhat on how big your collection is.
Someone with just a couple thousand parts would have very different
categories I suspect, and probably fewer than 21. Me with my 500k
collection might have more categories, or have some categories combined.
I found some parts changed categories to fit available space (hmm, no
more space for these clear thin walls in the windows box, I guess
they'll go with the walls).
I do need to do some warehousing, but that raises a management issue
since you're now managing two collections, plus managing when things
move between them. My overflow tends to be less sorted (like I've got
several boxes of plates, any kind of plates).
> I don't want to spend my life sorting. If you try to sort each of the
> thousands of distinct elements into its own bin, bag, or whatever,
> you'll spend way too much time sorting and not enough time building.
> There's a trade-off in time spent raking (or otherwise searching for a
> part among many others) and time spent sorting. I prefer to find a
> middle ground.
Definitely. Things get split for one of two reasons:
- they become too many for convenient containers
- there are some elements in the container which are hard to find.
> The size of what you're sorting, however, could be problematic. If
> you've just bought 50 Rebel Blockade Runners, then clearly that would
> pose difficulties. But in most situations it's only a small- to
> medium-sized MOC or at most a couple of LEGO sets to sort, which
> could be done with the active portion of the collection.
Well, 50 blockade runners would certainly present quite a challenge,
sorting many of the same set actually goes pretty quick. When I sorted
18 copies of Hagrid's Hut, I did one bag at a time, and it was amazing
how fast it went. It's real convenient there to do a one stage sort
because the quantities of each piece are so large, and you'll need to do
the final stage sort when you're done anyway.
> What do you *do* with such vast quantities of LEGO?
Ummm.... Sort? There is a problem with the quantity. I do spend too much
time managing it. I spent a couple weeks just dealing with unpacking it
from my move, and I'm still working on getting my new "system" bashed
into shape.
> > A couple problems:
> >
> > - I haven't found a good cabinet with larger drawers than the IRIS
> > cabinets (which is why I use the large Rubbermaid tubs).
>
> There's no need to have all of your dark grey BURPs together. Why not
> keep a reasonable stock on hand and put the rest in a cool, dark place?
Things like BURPs I think are actually effective to keep all in one
place, even if that place is in with the overflow. Why? Most of my
projects don't use them, and when I do have a project, I can just go to
the overflow closet and pull out a stack of BURPs (or bring out the
whole tub if the project is to build a giant mountain).
> The reason I recently sorted my Nx4 drawer (a separate baggie for each
> size and color, plus one for all the odds and ends) is precisely this
> - I was working on a model that used up all of my green and brown and
> dark grey bricks, and finding the last few was a chore (turns out I
> missed at least one brick, which turned up when I was sorting that
> drawer).
Bricks and plates are probably the most deserving of being sorted by
size and color.
> That's why I have baggies. It's easier to find a baggie of low
> quantity pieces than to find one piece loose among many other types.
> Sorting all the low quantity pieces into Plano boxes however, would
> drive me insane. I like having the freedom of having loose pieces in
> the drawer alongside the baggies.
>
> Using baggies also allows me to be lazy and have a few loose pieces in
> the drawer; but since those loose pieces are smaller in number, it's
> quick to find a particular one.
I do use baggies in my bins. I haven't made too much use of the loose
parts idea, but I see an advantage of it. The Plano box doesn't preclude
this, I just make a larger bin for the onesy-twosy parts (large enough
that it will be easy to shift them around and find the part you're
looking for). I do use the loose parts thing occasionally in the larger
parts though.
> > > Sorting for me is a multi-stage process. Say I'm disassembling a
> > > model or a new LEGO set I bought. I'll grab up pieces that go into
> > > the same drawer and then drop them in that drawer. Later I'll go
> > > through drawers and sort them on an as-needed basis. There are
> > > usually some loose pieces mixed in with the bag, as a result.
> >
> > Multistage sorting is definitely necessary beyond a certain point. My
> > primary storage takes to much space for efficient sorting, so my first
> > stage sort goes into various trays, bins, and tubs. Some parts are so
> > common that they get close to a final sort during stage one (the small
> > plates for example).
>
> I think I'm right about at the breaking point where multistage sorting
> becomes necessary.
Well, it sounds a bit like you do sort of do multi-stage sorting, you
just are set up so if the 2nd stage doesn't get done, the parts are
still reasonably accessible. This is a neat idea and I'll have to
consider it (hmm, actually, I do use it sometimes, because of how my
collection was stored in NC, I actually found it easier to get 1xN
bricks from the partially sorted overflow bins rather than excavate to
the sorted bins).
> I find that for some things sorting by color makes sense. For example
> if I'm building a spaceship I need to find all the windows of a
> particular color and that has some influence over the design, since I
> may not have enough of X part in Y color. (I try not to just buy
> whatever I need, because I don't have the budget for it, and to some
> extent it takes away from the challenge of working with what you've got.)
There definitely is a class of specialty parts (which will depend on
what you're building) which this is a good idea. Like you say, if you're
building a big space ship, it's much easier to pull out the trans-red
bag, than pull out each of the types of canopies you want to use.
> > > If I need to dig through the contents of a bag to find a particular
> > > part, I'll dump the bag out into a plastic bowl (one of the new
> > > disposable bowls from Ziplock), find what I want, and then pour the
> > > bowl's contents back into the bag.
> >
> > I find a lot of times with a clear bag it's easy to spot one of the
> > parts you're looking for and migrate it to the top of the bag where you
> > can easily fetch it out.
>
> Yes, that works most of the time. But sometimes it is easier to dump
> and pour. It depends on how big the bag is, how full it is, how big
> the part is, etc. etc.
I think the key to being able to find the part in bag is that the bag be
not too full, and the parts being small enough in relation to the size
of the bag that they "flow".
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
17 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
|
|
|
|
