I find it a little disconcerting something I see some of the designers doing. They post a design with a great photo showing it off. But when you look closer you see that what is in the photo is something you have to pay for or join Patreon to get and what is actually uploaded is a much simpler version. I believe that to be “bait and switch”. Frankly I think that behavior should be banned. I have no issues with folks making money for their designs, they worked hard, they deserve it. But to lure folks in with a promise of one thing but deliver something else is bad behavior in my book. I think you should headline a photo that represents what is uploaded and your description can include the teasers for your upgraded designs that are paid products. Thoughts?
There’s a couple of threads here about this and if it breaks the rules of use. Another variation is asking for boosts to unlock features.
Sad state of things, really. It’s just gross human behavior.
Akin to doing something like this:
Boost to unlock additional content in this message!
The guidelines have not yet been adapted. Not sure if Makerworld wants to allow this. They are certainly working on finding a good solution. Let’s be confident!
Such or similar appeals are often made in a wide variety of forms. Be it in forums to link to your own payment services or to draw attention to “pocket money” donations in the forum and in the description texts. Since advertising and affiliate links are prohibited, appeals such as “Give me a tip” would basically be just the same. Well …
(but I didn’t want to write that because it would lead to heated discussions again)
You bring up a good point. If advertising and affiliate links are disallowed, how is a comment about your Patreon page significantly different? Frankly I don’t mind learning that I can pay to get high quality products from a designer. It seems reasonable that MakerWorld would be a way to locate good designers. On the other hand I don’t like the “sneakiness” of posting a leading image of something that you aren’t offering. It’s the deception part that bothers me, not the pay part per se.
That bothered me too. However, Makerworld is intended to have excellent product images. I have raised this in various threads, but as far as I can remember there has been no reaction or response from Bambulab/Makerworld. Some people do nothing but model with very good software and render with very good software. And if you’re looking for photos of actual prints, you’ll have to click through a dozen renderings before you find them. However, they often have a very high success rate with their models.
I’m afraid that overall there’s not much we can do about it and we’ll all have to adapt and do something similar.
He’s not talking about 3d render thumbnail but a thumbnail teasing a paid model (patreon) where the actual model hosted on MW is a lite version of the paid model. which is IMO 100% deceptive and misleading and against the MW guidelines
I can understand having “lite” version on makerworld as long as hero image, preview and so on feature the “lite” version front and center and it’s explicitly stated that fully featured model is available on paid site.
If bait&switch happens in form of featuring full version in all photos and just stating somewhere deep in the description that if you print the model from MW it’ll be “lite” version and not the fancy one then it should be considered deceptive.
Nah. Luckily I’m not trying to make this a business and don’t need the income. For me it’s just sharing and learning and getting better at this stuff. Free filament/parts is sure nice though.
Bambu’s house and their rules. If anything, other users charging for stuff might get me more downloads by me not charging or even asking. I also get the people doing this for a living. I really don’t know on this one but it is interesting to see the opinions.
But I do see the point about presenting an elaborate model that you can’t download without paying for it. The photo doesn’t match the model you can print. It’s really no different than some of what was going on with people not posting photos to show printability. If I can’t print what’s in the photos, it’s the same thing in my book.
Oh god, but, if they put the price on their photos to print those models, then maybe that’s ok? Who knows but it would be more honest. And then maybe Bambu might want a cut?
yes… i don’t like it either. It’s cheesy and ugly, but seems that they have success with this kind of strategy.
If you want to stick with it, go with the flow. Everyone who is successful on social media ultimately earns money with it. Whether they need it or not. Maybe they donate it, I don’t know. Bill Gates and others also invest in projects that benefit the general public. It may be that there are individuals who reject any source of income. And perhaps there are also people who never redeem points on Makerworld. Some people don’t like the fact that there is a points system. But I’ve also seen that successful people are increasingly turning to monetisation. Whether we like it or not. We are no longer just operating at amateur level in this area, with poor photos and presentations (except me and a few others, but I’m working hard on it lol).
Also the AI story: people are rebelling against it. Yesterday I tried a few things and got frighteningly similar results to designs I’ve often seen here on Makerworld. Then I look at the download numbers and everything else and see that it’s accepted.
Bambulab also has an AI generator on Makerworld. There are already very good AI generators for 3D models, but I have not yet come across one that delivers perfect STLs of models; there is always a flaw in the AI-generated model. But that too will come (or is already here and I don’t know it yet). Today, script-based tools are still used to create geometric models such as boxes or desk organisers. In the future, it will probably be predominantly AI-based tools and the actual craft of 3D modelling will recede further into the background.
So I’m just discussing, I don’t want to offend anyone, I’m just sharing my observations, my experience. In the end, everyone decides for themselves who jumps on which trend.
PS:
Do you remember what the Internet was like in the early days? Editorial content was offered because people wanted to be there, because it was hip to be on the Internet, everything was free. And let’s take a look almost 30 years later at how things look today. Many people were disturbed by this, but no one has been able to stop the development of the monetisation of the Internet.
Have a nice day an best regards! 
I remember paying for bulletin boards back then, shareware disks etc… It’s never been “free” in my opinion. Think these days there’s just a lot more people with their hand out and you don’t need a speciality as you can buy your way in.
I don’t think Bambu minds self promoting, and one using tools to make money off of their talents. The issue starts when people are using Bambu and it’s community to enrich themselves at the determinate of the community.
You know, like having links in one’s description to get hardware that is needed for the project, it might provide some benefit for the designer, but it also serves the community. It’s a relationship where we can mutually benefit.
Where things are problematic, is when people take advantage of the community to push their own BS. If someone is using Makerworld to try and funnel people towards their money making schemes, it’s a bit more frowned upon.
I think a bit about 3d sets over on pintables. They go down both of these paths; respecting the community and disrespecting the community. Now, I like 3dsets, I like their work, but I don’t like their little bait and switch thing on Printables. They have their Model 1: Rancher 4x4… except it’s not the actual model. It’s just a piece a gawd danged advertisement, and it annoys me.
But then they have their Landy Mini, which is an actual model, and I think that level of advertising is a lot more respectful to the community. It gives to the community while also saying hey, this is who we are.
That’s the issue with a lot of that bait and switch stuff. Those people don’t respect the community and don’t give it, they only use it as a tool for their own schemes.
I think there’s a number of people out there right now using AI tools to try and enrich themselves at the determinate of the community. These people claim themselves artist, but the quality of what they put out there is more on par with grifting. It’s a scam.
I don’t think AI is going to sweep the world. I think people misunderstand the extent of it’s abilities. While it can probably get good enough to make certain things, like organic characters, it’ll struggle with things that take a lot of logical thinking, planning, and inventing, like more complex mechanical movements.
I think the people that are pushing AI models, like that franken-duck model we saw, they just aren’t good artist, so don’t understand how poor of quality that work is, how misleading it is. Maybe they do understand, and if they do, that just makes their grift even worse.
I think there’s room for stuff like that. I don’t want to discourage it. But I think people need to be honest with what it is and what they’re doing. As an early look into what AI could do, it’s a cool thing. The whole of it. I mean, that person concepted and then created a model with an AI pipeline, and that is neat enough.
I really dislike the point though at which that person took all of that and tried to hide that it’s all AI generated. I think that is incredibly shady and disrespectful to the community.
Isn’t it against the rules to post a photo of something that is not a printed model? How does it look like, any examples? When I uploaded something, it wanted me to post a photo of what I printed, not some other random thing.
You can upload anything as long as it doesn’t break the rules. The main thing is that you have a photo of a real print that you upload.
But that’s my question. Isn’t it against the rules to have the photo of something that is not a print of this model?
Here’s a random example. It is not against the rules to post, say, a cat picture here? I see the following in the rules, which sounds like you can post anything, as long as one of the photos is a photo of your model. Or if you use another license. I am honestly surprised, that can’t be intentional, or can it?
When publishing a public model under the CC0 license, you are required to include your own image of the actual print to show its printability.
It is a problem when hyper-realistic renderings are created whose object quality the user can never achieve at home. On the other hand, you can create renderings that are recognisable as renderings. The first type is clickbait, the second type invites you to look at the model. It becomes even more problematic if clickbait tactics are also used in the model description, for example if the profile is flooded with hyper-realistic renderings and a photo of a very poor 3D print only appears in tenth or twentieth place (because it can be assumed that users don’t even see this last alibi image because they don’t work their way that far.
Makerworld has rules about this, but you need to know what you can complain about: misleading content, such as descriptions and titles and images. I asked Google’s Gemini to create an accurate summary, which makes it clearer.
What is Clickbait on MakerWorld?
The issue of clickbait isn’t just limited to YouTube; it’s also present in other online communities like MakerWorld.
What does clickbait mean in this context?
- Misleading profile names: Instead of using descriptive names, sensational or cryptic titles are often used to attract attention and increase downloads.
- Exaggerated promises: Print profiles are advertised with features they don’t actually possess.
- Manipulation of statistics: By artificially increasing download numbers or positive ratings, attempts are made to increase a profile’s attractiveness.
Why is clickbait problematic on MakerWorld?
- Loss of trust: Users who rely on misleading information may be disappointed and lose trust in the community.
- Waste of time: Searching for suitable print profiles becomes more difficult when many profiles are flooded with clickbait.
- Unfair competition: Serious creators of print profiles are disadvantaged as their high-quality work may be overshadowed by clickbait profiles.
- Distortion of ratings: Manipulated ratings make it difficult to assess the actual quality of a profile.
What measures can be taken against it?
- Community guidelines: MakerWorld could formulate clearer guidelines against clickbait and monitor compliance more strictly.
- Transparent rating systems: Mechanisms should be introduced that allow for a more objective evaluation of print profiles and make manipulation more difficult.
- User education: The community should be educated about the dangers of clickbait so that users are better able to recognize misleading content.
- Feedback mechanisms: Opportunities should be created to provide feedback on print profiles and thus improve the quality of content.
Conclusion: Clickbait is a problem that also occurs in specialized communities like MakerWorld. To ensure the quality of content and strengthen user trust, clear rules and active moderation are necessary.
Especially the point User education could really be improved on Makerworld.
Good morning!
I have not yet found a reference for this. Could you give / show an example?
Incidentally, I agree with the statement otherwise (hence my assessment of your post) if it is deliberate deception and you are actually presenting a model and suggesting a quality that cannot be realised with the printable profile on Makerworld. However, this would basically also apply to print profiles that are not matched well enough, which is why there should be photos of real prints.
On the other hand, you can present a model whose quality matches the print profile, but point out that this does not present the work in its actual originality (such as detail), but serves as an example. There have been a few such examples on Makerworld and I think it’s legitimate.
The only question that arises is why you are not allowed to show your work in its perfection, also and especially because the print model available here cannot reflect this.
I just checked and it looks like the option to report a model for no photo seems gone now. This used to be a big deal because there was a time long ago (few months) when MW was being flooded with models from points hounds. We got cubes, tubes, shims, the alphabet many times over, etc, and much of it was just screen grabs of renders in Studio.
But Bambu cleaned a lot of that up and they seem to have dropped the photo requirement again. At least I’m not seeing it. But it used to be a basis for reporting models and them getting taken down because scammers were using that loophole to not even bother printing as they flooded the place with useless junk.
When that requirement was in force (I guess it’s no longer) it would have been a reason to report/remove bait and switch models if the photo wasn’t of the model because photos of the model were required. But I don’t know when it changed. Probably fairly recently. Will be interesting to see what happens if they truly have rescinded it.
So apologies for misleading but apparently the rules are different again?