I hate this. It is already awful that many people do not provide step/f3d files for easy editing. Boosts should be given to the designs that people like and not those that suck and have to be edited. If I see one of these in the wild, I will convert them into step files and just release them for free in a comment 
Another popular maker who’ll skirt the rules, their catalogue is much the same and I don’t see MW doing much in the way of curtailing them as they’re established and have numbers on the board. I’ve battled over a week to get some sense out of them with another person who disregards the guidelines since day dot. They’ve gone soft and don’t care as long as they keep hitting their kpi’s, I don’t see it getting any better.
Honestly, who gives a flying frick? People can spend their boosts however they want. If they get something more from it, then it benefits the boost giver as much as the boost receiver.
1 Like
I think that when we have to police the site ourselves we care.
If you don’t, cool. Appreciate your input, but some do care.
8 Likes
I was just about to ask about this here, posted on reddit too to mixed response
It feels a bit disingenuous to try and get more boosts with these incentives, it’s all framed as another get rich quick scheme too
Same user but different file, this isn’t Patreon/thangs and those are already problematic for the industry enough
1 Like
Patreon/thangs and those are already problematic for the industry enough
What’s the problem exactly?
I’ve seen models saying “available for a limited time only” then it becomes available only on a Patreon style service.
That is troubling.
Others upload only one model in a set and tell people all the others are available only on a Patreon style account, this goes against the purpose of this site.
This is also troubling.
I believe both of these ‘promotions’ are prohibited under the new rules.
Having a Patreon account and promoting it for commercial licensing options or a means for followers to contribute to the financial success of the designer (under no obligation) are not a problem in my opinion.
I imagine Thangs would be seen as a competitor site and also now an external link not allowed under the new rules.
I’ve seen models saying “available for a limited time only” then it becomes available only on a Patreon style service.
That is troubling.
Others upload only one model in a set and tell people all the others are available only on a Patreon style account, this goes against the purpose of this site.
This is also troubling.
Hmm what exactly troubles you about those things? That they’re possibly against makerworld rules? I believe jaayjeee was talking in general (the industry) in the part I quoted, not just in relation to makerworld.
The idea that someone provides a snapshot of their models with the express aim of driving them to a different location creates a segmented solution, be it Makerworld or one of the other sites.
In an ideal world each site (be it MW or the others) would provide an equivalent to the revenue generating solutions like Patreon, so designers can add optional (emphasis on optional) services like commercial licenses (if the designer wants) or merch (if a designer gets big enough).
I am clearly speaking for my own needs as both a designer and a user. I prefer the idea of a single location capable of delivering on quality, that cleans up the fakers and fraudsters proactively and does what they can to provide a neighbourhood that meets the various needs of the designer and those of the user.
The two examples I cited earlier aim to split the experience and segment it away from whatever is the primary service (again, be it MW or another).
I’m not looking for a walled garden, just a well maintained one that doesn’t expect me to go to the neighbours gardens when I need something or tells me I can only look at certain flowers for a short time before my neighbour gets them and I have to do something special to see them again. My metaphor got away from me there.
I assume opinions differ and that is great.
2 Likes
In principle, I also found it very disappointing when such practices are introduced. However, this has been on my mind for a while and there is clearly something on the table that should not be forgotten. There are many people who create designs and are asked by the site owners to deliver even better or much more designs just so that they are visible on the site. Of course, nobody has to do this, but many people hope to get something out of their work. Let’s take the many hours that are invested in designs and work out how much money that costs? These are simply enormous sums of private investment that users give away and from which website operators and printer manufacturers profit without providing an adequate return. In addition, the designs that belong to the users are stolen by others. So there must be solutions here.
Some designs are only suitable for hobby use to a limited extent. It makes the most sense to offer step models. While an original model has 6 million or 3 million polygons, FDM printing requires perhaps 20,000 polygons to produce a figure 15cm high in a reasonable amount of time. With SLA, slightly more polygons make sense, which brings out more details of the model. If you want to print a model extremely large with FDM or in a large size with SLA, it may make sense to have the model in original resolution, depending on your requirements. But please don’t ask designers to do this for free!
In my opinion, the boosts don’t work the way designers want them to. I said this elsewhere in the forum before or when the first models were boosted and that’s exactly how it turned out.
We have discussed the latest development with the boosts.
It could be useful to be able to spend the boost tokens acquired with a model only on this model. The user can then decide whether they want to reward the model or not. If not, the boost token will expire at some point.
Look at the nonsense with the gravestone: over 100 boosts with 87 prints. Makerworld has shortened the printing time to 30 minutes in order to obtain boost tokens…
1 Like
@KanneKaffe @Henlor
This creator removed the trading-like description.
We will make the community guideline clearer about “what is getting points or boosts inappropriately”
5 Likes
Ah nice ! thank you @Tanklet, it’s much appreciated 
Thank you for clarification!
Proposal:
I suggest that we introduce the possibility of offering a free reward for boosting a model. For instance, I would be happy to provide a higher-resolution version as a token of appreciation if someone boosts it.
Reasoning:
Boosts encourage me to enhance my models. If a model doesn’t receive any boosts, I’m less inclined to continue working on it, as it seems that people don’t value it enough. My proposal essentially achieves the same outcome. It clearly communicates the purpose of a boost, and the person spending the boost token knows exactly what they’re getting in return. I believe this is beneficial for both parties, making it a win-win situation.
Best regards and have a nice day!
1 Like
The ingenuity of people to push the boundaries 
I really don’t envy the people operating platforms 
2 Likes
This appears to be the same questionable practice that has been discussed in this thread. You are encouraging people to boost your model by offering them incentives. How is this any different from what the creator mentioned in this thread is doing?
5 Likes
I find the level of begging for Boosts a bit on the nose and think @MakerWorld just invited these schemes when they gave direct monetary value to them. Sure they were intended to make up for the big point drop suffered when they changed the point layout, I highly doubt it really made it fairer across the board.
There are viral models just released gaining dozens just on the popularity, I swear half them won’t even be printed. They really should be linked in with a successful print like the rating system.
That’s interesting. As a trade, I don’t see anything wrong for asking for boosts to unlock perks.
However, what I or any other person thinks, is by and large irrelevant. The only important thing is, how Bambu Labs / MakerWorld officially stands on this matter.
Even if this question is binary with a yes or no, no matter what that answer is, it could potentially open up for more grey area topics or questions.
1 Like
Not quite. In the first case, you have boosts that you simply give out to a designer whose model you would like to have. The boosts can come from anywhere, even by printing other models from another designer.
The fact that the user gets something when he gives a boost could be useful because it opens up additional possibilities. But the idea is to prevent other designers’ models from being “abused” for the boosts. I think that’s the reason why most people feel this is unfair.
That’s why I suggested two things:
- to link the boosts to the designer or even to the model where they were created (if they were created by printing). This means that the boost tokens cannot be spent anywhere else and can accumulate en masse on a model because it is currently popular. And if models are boosted more often, we know that this is due to the model itself, because it has been printed and has therefore rightly earned the boost tokens.
- adapt the rules so that a reward for boosting (for example in the form of a higher-resolution model or similar things) is permitted. This gives the designer the opportunity not only to beg for a boost token, but also to determine what the user can get in return.
The way Boost Tokens are designed to be used (and now I’m repeating what I said in the introduction) they are unfortunately also a selection tool for designers. By giving more Boost Tokens to popular models, these designers are encouraged to deliver more of these models or how they are presented (advertised). These designers will enjoy their work. Other designers hardly get any boost tokens or none at all for their models. They are “unequally” rewarded for their work, so that they may lose the desire to continue and turn to other platforms in disappointment and/or withdraw their often nevertheless good designs from the users on Makerworld (by deleting them). It can also mean that the latter designers are more likely to want to monetise their models.