Subject:
|
Re: Building habits (Warning: Long-Winded!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.storage
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:26:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3986 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.storage, Jonathan Dallas writes:
<snip!>
> question:
> I see a lot of people with systems that involve sorting everything by type
> and size and I just can't figure out where they get all the time to do it.
My question to you is: where do you find the time NOT to sort your collection?
My LEGO collection was still relatively small (~ 5,000 pieces) when I
realized just how much time I was spending searching for parts while
building. The resulting distraction would often make me forget what I was
trying to build in the first place, the digging noise was driving my wife
crazy, and the digging itself was scratching all of my pieces, whether I
used them or not.
The time it takes to locate a desired piece in a random pile will depend on
many factors, among them the size of the pile being searched, the
variability of the pieces in that pile, and the relative proportion of
"correct" pieces among the total mass of the pile. As you increase the size
and variability of the pile, you exponentially increase the time it takes to
locate any given piece. In plain terms, this means that as your LEGO
collection grows, and as TLC designs more new parts, it becomes much, much
harder to find what you need.
If you sort pieces immediately when you open a set or dismantle a model, you
are only dealing with a small subset of parts, and usually many multiples of
the same part. This means that it will be quicker to separate a small pile
fresh from a poly bag than it will be to dig through a more diverse pile
just a few times. The following academic disciplines all provide theory
that will back up what I am saying: Combinatorial Mathematics, Probability
and Statistics, Computer Science (searching & sorting algorithms), Chaos
Theory, and even Thermodynamics (entropy).
Remember: If you sort, you sort only once. But if you don't sort, you
search EVERY TIME!
I certainly spend more time sorting than I used to, but I can build much
faster as a result. The net effect for me is that I can build what I want
to build more quickly and with less frustration than if I skipped the
sorting phase.
If you doubt this, try the following experiment. Sit down with a friend and
two copies of a medium-to-large LEGO set, say, over 500 pieces. One of you
opens all the poly bags, dumps them into a big pile, and mixes everything
up. The other does not open any poly bags yet. Now, both start building
the model at the same time and see who finishes first, but with the
restriction that the person with the unopened poly bags must first sort the
pieces by type and color before building anything. The idea is to compare
the total time it takes to build a model from an unsorted pile vs. sorting a
new set and then building the model from the sorted collection. If I were
the gambling type, I would lay good money down that the sorter will always
finish first with any non-trivial model, and the larger the model, the more
time will be saved. (Note: This experiment is actually biased in favor of
the non-sorter, because as the model nears completion, the un-sorted pile
that you have to search through will shrink -- an effect that is negligible
if you're building a small model from a relatively large pile-o-bricks.
When's the last time you built an MOC that used virtually every piece in
your entire collection?)
I generally hate sorting, but I hate even more trying to build and not being
able to find pieces that I know I have. I figure, I'm either going to look
everywhere for every piece that I need every time I need it, or else I'll
just put each new piece where it belongs once, and know where to find it
forever more. (I also find that my sorting interludes give me an
opportunity to "recharge" creatively while my sub-conscious contemplates the
brick without actively trying to build a specific item.)
Another thing I hate is getting halfway into a project before realizing that
I don't have critical pieces that I need. Quick: How many red 1x3 plates do
you have? It took me less than five seconds to open a drawer and see that I
have four of them that aren't built into models at the moment. Now I can
decide whether to buy more LEGO, build it in yellow instead, or re-design it
to use different parts altogether. If I didn't sort things, I would
literally have to sift through my entire pile, brick by brick, to determine
with certainty whether or not I have enough of them. If I could examine two
pieces per second, it would take me approximately 14 hours to exhaustively
search through my entire collection this way.
> When I build, I like to try different pieces and change my models at will.
> Which means I usually end up with a large pile of pieces left over at the
> end. I would hate to have to sort that into a bunch of tiny little draws. [sic.]
I do this as well. I find that my ability to experiment with different
pieces while building is enhanced by my ability to instantly put my finger
on any piece I can think of. And my memory of what pieces I own is enhanced
by the fact that I originally forced myself to think of a logical place to
store each one.
Sure, I have to re-sort the cast-aways when I'm done with a project, and
sometimes I leave the left-over parts in a box or in a pile for several
weeks out of sheer laziness. But again, the effort of re-sorting these
piles is dwarfed by the effort of searching for just one or two rare pieces
in an ocean of ABS. The more pieces you have, and the more unique molds
that LEGO produces, the longer these random searches will take EVERY TIME
YOU REACH FOR A PIECE.
Sorting isn't for everyone, but this might help you to understand why it is
definitely for me!
~~~~~~~ DISCLAIMER ~~~~~~~
I don't sort everything. I do enjoy the kind of creative free-form building
that occurs when you just dump a few Town sets (for example) into a bin and
try to build something from it. But when I'm doing that, it's nice to know
that I can still open a drawer and put my fingers on any piece that I need
once inspiration takes root.
I also tend to buy sets faster than I sort them. The unopened sets often
sit for weeks or months before I open them, and I have been known to pilfer
a few parts from a set without sorting the rest of it immediately. (After
all, the goal behind sorting is to streamline the creative process, not to
inhibit it.) But when I see that some of my drawers are starting to get low
I know that it is time to catch up on my sorting.
Finally, those who have seen my LEGO workbench will attest that it is
covered with random parts, sorting bins, and partially-constructed MOC's.
I'm not as anal-retentive about order as this posting might suggest. But I
find that a good, balanced dose of discipline in the form of sorting has
greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the hobby.
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Building habits (Warning: Long-Winded!)
|
| (...) <HUGE SNIP> (only for the cause of breviety) I'd like to chime in here. I fully agree with Chris here, and this is the reason why. I've been told I'm in the top 10 of documented set accumulation, (I haven't actually researched this, too busy (...) (23 years ago, 25-Apr-01, to lugnet.storage)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Building habits
|
| (...) light sensors can, but not very well. Vision command can and if you do make an automatic sorter let me know. ;-) (...) Well that's just going to far. Maybe I'm miss reading this, but I would not suggest to someone who says he's lazy to sort by (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.storage)
|
51 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
|
|
|
|
