Disallow minor variations on derivative models from Exclusive program

MakerWorld
25

My work was brought up by others, not by me.

I didn’t introduce sarcasm I defended my hard work against those who believe I broke rules that MakerWorld says I haven’t.

I called out those views as should be my right to defend myself against malicious attacks.

Remember, this didn’t start as an educational review and a polite discussion it started with hate and an attitude that I had gamed the system with as described by the OP my slop.

This is the hate you say I brought?

Do you think this purports to be the polite discussion you state it started as?

After this, someone who never commented in this thread previously stated.

This is the hate you say I brought?

I called out people for deciding my work was slop, I received a hope my terminal illness would hurry up and finally kill me and the hope others would die as well.

Several people pointed out there was nothing wrong with my work.

You come along and try and say other models I have created and MakerWorkd has manually check for inclusion in the exclusive program are nit worthy of being on MakerWorld.

I asked you why, you believe such a thing and you tell me I am attacking you, which I clearly did not.

You state rules of which I have not broken as a defence for highlighting models that you thought shouldn’t be here or in the exclusive program.

You tell me I generated the hate for defending my work from the first attack and then from yours, I gave no hate, I defended myself from unwarranted attacks on models MakerWorld has already signed off on.

I assume you read their messages to me of their appreciation for my fidgets spinners that bring joy.

Yet, you decide that fidget spinners they have welcomed with open arms break the policies they would have enforced.

What possible motive did you have, it was educational discussion, it was t to say I broke the rules as MakerWorld clearly do not believe so and that was known before your latest missive.

You attack my work, tell me I am the hate monger all the while having been informed the rule maker loves them.

You get offended for me asking why.

Nuts, utter nuts.

2 Likes
26

Soo what productive things have you fine gentlemen being doing lately? :slight_smile:

2 Likes
27

Dunno… This all seems live a very unnecessary drama… I’m gonna echo myself and simply say: “I get wanting some quality control, but don’t be startin’ unnecessary drama”

This is very much the case of unnecessary drama - sure there’s some confusion by others, but that could be very well solved by markerworld implementing actual decent collections mechanisms. Until then, model variations and profile variations the kind Malc does are IMHO in-line with the rules.

1 Like
28

Yes, please!

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

1 Like
29

I fully agree, but i would go with benefits of the doubt (see recommendations for variants below) - and consider is not defined properly. Still it`s consider certain practices as spam, and we need a solution that that, it clutters the search and listings.

If we check the rules, and add some interpretation to it:

Community Guidelines
https://makerworld.com/en/community-guidelines

1. Spam & deceptive practices

I would consider this behavior as spam.

Others, 1

“Models that only have slight variations but are uploaded as “Remix” will be taken down.” - If it´s only a slight modification, like a logo. If would not be a valid remix but viable as original model? Questionable.

Others, 5:

“Do not repeatedly upload the same model as it will be removed from the platform, and your account will be flagged.” - It´s still the same model, colored differently. I would consider it as the same model.

Print Profile Guidelines

3. High-quality print profiles, Carefully colorized a model.
Adding a logo is nothing different to me.

4. Separate versions on the different plate (not mandatory)
Could be the same base model with a different edge, rounded, spiked etc.

8. Splitting a model into multiple print profiles for uploading
“A permitted exception is if a component of your model has multiple variants; you may upload the variant as a separate print profile, although it is recommended to uploaded variants as separate plates in a print profile and name the plates accordingly.” This is the official recommendation if you vote against build plates.

While the Print Profiles Guidelines have additional issues, like the photos for example on multi-variant models to ensure printability.

Note:
Having the ruleset, split makes it complicated to refer to one or the other. There should be one ruleset for models and print profiles.

EDIT:

  • spelling
  • added note
1 Like
30

So when you add a toilet paper holder, then you add a print profile for the kitchen paper because its too similar and it is only modified by making it longer, while scaling would not work since it will scale every part.
now how many ppl looking for a kitchen paper holder will find it?

2 Likes
31

Good question, i do not have a direct answer to that

  • Is it a variant because only the length changed?
  • Is it a multi purpose paper holder for all kinds of paper rolls in different sizes or lengths?
  • Is it a parametric model where the user can define length and diameter?

Would i consider a Toilet Paper holder in 10 sizes uploaded as individual models as spam? Yes, i would.

1 Like
32

It’s an example.
I still think i have a lot of problems my items getting found by the searh engine even how much i optimize search terms, keywords, title.
Now, imagine i’m your average joe browsing through, and page 104 i see a toiletpaper holder in the image, in title it says it will hold even your grandmothers panties.
Is this the one you want, or move on and look somehting that looks good on image for purpose?

1 Like
33

I want the user to browse through the results and find something, different kinds of paper holders, different models, different utilizations.

Not the same model in 20 colors.

I also want the user to see in the search, that a model provides variations, sizes, edges, can be customized etc. I want the user to have a good experience in the search. I want the user to be able to make an educated decision, and to be aware of the options available. The more the better.

The search is currently not in a good state, i often find unrelated things and i am missing out on the stuff i am looking for. But this is a different topic.

34

@benjaminkott Your words don’t match your actions.

I don’t have a problem with these, but, you appear to based on your words that disqualify the ones below being distinct models.

Ken & Barbie, you couldn’t get closer associated.

IMG_8187
IMG_81871668×870 391 KB

Shouldn’t there be only one keyboard under shelf tray?

IMG_8188
IMG_81881668×843 265 KB

Surely a deflector is a deflector.

IMG_8189
IMG_81891668×828 207 KB

Aren’t all boxes just boxes, there can be only one based on your logic.

IMG_8191
IMG_8191833×819 72.4 KB
IMG_8192
IMG_8192829×848 149 KB

Mine aren’t, not even close. Each model usually has 7 profiles to provide the common styles users have requested.

Each model is a distinctly different model with entirely different geometry and significant differences in triangles. More importantly, most are requests as mentioned previously, to solve problems for individuals, usually kids.

3 Likes
35

I don’t want to add too much :poop: to this topic, but this rule is there to prevent other people creating a bogus remix to claim points for a model that they had no hand in designing. So I think it is not geared towards the contents of this discussion.

Secondly, this seemed to be a discussion about whether MW should disallow minor variations as separate models, and a question towards the community for their opinion. Not whether people are currently overstepping any rules. And yes, there is a big grey area between having a toilet roll dispenser separate from a kitchen roll dispenser on one side and uploading every chess piece from a chess set as a separate model on the other side.

Right now MW is more flooded with low quality models and stolen models than creators that upload similar designs as separate models.

Other than that, I have to refill my popcorn, especially after the added spice above :rofl:

3 Likes
36

@MalcTheOracle

I agree on the magnets, but i did not plan to make a big collection here, so i went with that. Just stuff my wife wanted for carnival. Did you also see the Dr. Barbie Badge?

The keyboard hangers are similar, but please compare the models, they are exactly shaped for the keyboards.

There is 1 deflector and a magnetic poop box, they just happen to be in the same shot.

I would do the ultimate keyboard tray collection, i only own these 2.

You missed the other 2 box models i have, and as you can see all related variants are listed in the models as print profiles. These 2 are also parametric, the stackable box was converted also for OpenScad also ships the fusion sources. Also, perfect examples how i think they should be listed.

Thx for bringing them up. Some more examples:

I think i hold up to my own standards and actions.
But as always, always happy to improve.

1 Like
37

In my view system needs to be better how it handles all the search functionality atm i can sears for a spool holder and find totally unrelated things.
System needs way more categories, and possibly even subcategories of subcategories.
I have plenty of my stuff split, i also have plenty of my stuff in print profiles, not that i have that many and some were made when i was just starting 38/88 if you want to know.
I, along with most of people talking here, am not trying to game the system, but the system is there as it is, and it would be way more productive for me, and maybe you also, to get something new done then pointing finger at other designers, creators, or what you’d wish today is the keyword for finding you in the algorithm.
I am out of the chat anyway, i thought earlier small joke would help you come to realize the silliness of this but…

38

just stopping by to say i really like your desk drawer modular :slight_smile: and i like how you structure the design, description and print profiles, very clean and easy to understand :clap:

1 Like
39

But is this not the same as adding a Logo? So

I can fully second that. And would love to go back to that discussion.

40

If only you offered me the same regard.

You described my models as changes in colour and textures without looking at the models or the mechanics.

41

I’m afraid I disagree, Whilst the first paragraph might have swayed that way.

That was not an educational review of a position the community could discuss. That was a conclusion, offence remarks and accusations of abusing and thus profiting.

1 Like
42

Please, i did.

  • I agree with the issue
  • I don`t think that the initial models are problematic and 100% follow what the previous posters said about the differences of the models regarding type, gyro, figet etc.
  • I still think that the “Hero” Spinners are variants of the same.
  • I also think that finishing touches like nobs, etc are variants and they would be better suited to be organized like your tea lights.

edit: typo

43

ok we are finally done, thank you every one. have a nice day

44

To clarify, tagging @MalcTheOracle was never intended to be offensive or to call him out in any way. I simply recognized his models and was aware of his previous contributions to this topic. If I had known this would lead to such a hostile discussion, I wouldn’t have engaged at all—although I don’t believe the tag itself made any difference.

That said, if Makerworld is okay with how Malc organizes his files, then so am I. Personally, I don’t see it as abusive.

2 Likes