Subject:
|
Re: Lego New is Up (and ALREADY a mistake)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:49:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
889 times
|
| |
|
|
If you want inconsistencies, with a site this big there will inevitably be a
lot of them if you look hard enough. You can't expect perfection in something
this big. Fortunately, most of the problems won't be very significant. For
instance, here is one that is basically benign, but shows the difficulty in
keeping things consistent over a number of years, or when more than one person
works on it: start at http://www.lego.com/info/history/
"History, Facts and Figures"
There's a list of decades (except the first link which goes from 1932-1959).
Check out the last one, though.
- The link (bitmap) says "1990-1999"
- The url is http://www.lego.com/info/history/hist9098.asp which is
inconsistent with the other years which are all of the form histXXYY where XX
is the start year, and YY the end year. For example, hist8089.asp - the LEGO
history of the 1980s.
- Now go to that page. It has a title of "About us - History 1990 to 1997".
Hmm. That should probably be fixed.
- And finally, the page contents go up to the year 2000. I guess creating a
new decade 2000-2009 would cause just as many eyes to turn, as people wondered
how they already know what they're achievements will be in the next 9 years.
But at least that way you wouldn't have to remember to rename the file every
year!
By the way, something that really intrigued me was the following comment under
the year 2000: "A nine-act opera is produced in Italy on the LEGO Company's
history from 1932 to the present day." The LEGO site had nothing else to say
about it. But a search on LUGNET turned up the following informative posts by
Mario Ferrari: http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=18180 and
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=18203. Cool! I wonder if it will ever be
played elsewhere?
--
David Schilling
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego New is Up (and ALREADY a mistake)
|
| Well, the new Bulk pages already have a mistake - the 2x6 bricks use a picture of a 2x8 - wasn't that an OLD error that they never fixed? They had a perfect opportunity to fix it with the update, and blew it. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support (...) (24 years ago, 14-Sep-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
