I never took your comment as anything other than positive.
I read it as “I don’t agree, I doubt Malcolm will and he will defend himself vigorously.”
I was grateful for it and still am. I saw no malice or negativity.
You did not call me out (negative connotation) you alerted me (positive connotation).
This. I have no doubt that if Malc is doing something Makerworld disagrees with, there will be corrective action.
There’s no reason to waste time being volunteer content moderators for a for-profit business. Focus your energies on building each other up and designing cool things.
On the other hand, efforts from such volunteers have kept MW from turning into a swamp. If I am not mistaken, Malc is one of these volunteers whose efforts should be appreciated.
If there isn’t some prior history between OP and Malc, I would consider this post as being done in good faith. However, when raising a general issue or making a suggestion, it’s better to avoid getting too personal, or avoid the appearance of such.
In this case, one can simply make a suggestion without citing any specific cases. If one wants to add some examples to support the suggestion, it is better to show cases from several creators, so as not to have the appearance of targeting one. After all, an issue (perceived or real) from only one creator does not warrant a system-wide change.
Oh MW is punishing Malc for his design work.
It’s just more indirect and diabolical by having sales for products that they won’t sell him (tacky plates and and filaments) and when they do send him something they use a service that makes carrier pigeons and mule trains look efficient.
I need to order more stuff, I am literally sitting in a shopping list wondering if I confirm the order.
Keep in mind, I have a printer list by the delivery partner at their depot that I am meant to be donating to a school.
You got me with this, well done. But, yes, it does seem that way. Three separate items have been lost or stolen before they ever got to me and BL dealt with the first, ignored the second and are silent a week later on the third.
It seems to be on a per basis level. There have been cases where makerworld asked users to combine models into one/Offer the variations as profiles instead. Those model had much more significant changes made to it and different addons compared to the spinners listed (Hence them initially being posted as separate models)
MW “recommends” setting up variations of the same model as multiple plates or multiple profiles under the same model. The only time that MW sets up a rule to deal with this issue is the rule on a max of 5 entries in a contest from one account.That rule was from a time when some filled up the contest page with dozens of variations of the same model as separate entries.
But the debate on what makes an upload a new model instead of a variation of an existing one has been there for a long time. It’s subjective. If some users got asked to combine their uploads, it could be that these were entered into contests and thus attracted the attention, or they were reported.
I say it for the third time - this all is unnecessary drama.
And I say it again: sure - having a quality control for exclusive models would be great and the topics regarding exclusive model program itself, its rules and guidances were plenty with plenty of good people giving good advice to MW.
And with drama issue - with Malc’s niche there’s very little actual tools to manage model uploads properly which makes it appear as if those changes are minimal yet aren’t (and the users looking for specific ones to be able to find them). Hell, in other niches there’s the same problem and could very well be used as a bad example, just instead of fidget spinners use “impossible vertex” or some other passthrough. I don’t get the point of them, clearly they are possible, i see dozens of same models that differ only in “one’s a tall pyramid, other’s short pyramid, other’s a simple cone, this one is simple cone too but shorter and that simple cone is green so it’s a christmas tree”.
I repeat: there’s no proper tooling in MW to handle niche items that do differ from user’s and creator’s perspective yet bystander could be confused.
You are totally right, and we should address all of them. The spinners again were used as an example and then the drama (we hopefully left behind us now) started.
Again, some examples, please add what you are missing:
It´s about making it a rule to add variants as build-plate or profile and not a recommendation anymore. And we all know it´s currently a gray area depending how you read the guidelines.
This is not about putting guilt on someone, this is bringing attention to a problem we have and see in multiple areas and need to bring a stop to it. It does not matter if the models are exklusive, or not for me. It should become a general rule.
The question is, do we as community want this, and does @MakerWorld agree.
This not an argument for not having the rule. You can create tools for everything, see thangs for automatic diffing of 3D models. The question is do we need it, and how important this is.
If we talk about exclusive rights, we give the rights to MakerWorld and we agree to publish it nowhere else, as stated in the license agreement. MakerWorld has now the right, to go after copycats, Etsy, etc, etc to redeem their right, we granted to them. Can they do it without tooling?
Probably not. Will they have it tomorrow? Can they rely on reports meanwhile?
We finally need a rule for this, to have a clear guideline, people can refer and stick to.
And MakerWorld can enforce this rule, as they do with others.
Should we be able to discuss what rules we need? Yes, we should.
Should we be able to discuss that existing rules/guidelines are nonsense? Yes, we should.
Should we help making decisions? Yes, we should.
Should rules be adjusted if they don´t fit? Yes, they should.
Can we force it? No, we cannot.
Can we provide arguments @MakerWorld can think about? Yes, we can.
They listened to feedback in the past and will hopefully in the future.
I am sorry for the person who needs to read all this drama.
The goal should be to improve the platform,
and looking away from problems was never a good idea.
Pros:
Cons:
The drama started, because the spinners are not a good example, quite the opposite. Even the mentioned by me “impossible vertex” thingies are couter-example: they are different enough to allow them to be a separate models on their own.
No… I’ll remove item that is too broad: The “keyring-set” is too limiting and stiffling. Lemme explain: tne example that you mentioned is “hero spinner” which is imho too general theme: so do we differentiate on DC hero keychain, Marvel hero keychain, IC hero keychain, Valliant hero keychain, Dark Horse hero keychain… or is that too simple and it needs to be “comic book hero keychain”?
2 of your proposed anti-spam rules are I think already a rule - scalling items is considered re-upload.
That leaves alphabet rule which imho is OK-ish, but I wonder how far will one’s limited thinking go… I mean - do we go “Arial letters keychains” and then “Arial Black letter” or “oh noes, Arial and Arial Black are the same family!” or do we go “All sans serif typefaces keychain”?
Anyway - This thread is unnecessary drama, the opening post itself poisoned the discussion and any “positive rule” discussion would be a fruit of a poisoned tree. I strongly suggest starting a fresh discussion, one that’s not poisoned by misguided “oh noes, i don’t understand it, it must be therefore slop and since there’s lot it’s spam”. And I don’t think it makes sense to even start new discussion within bounds of exclusive model program before it’s rules stop being mostly subjective.
You are partly correct, as mentioned multiple times now, the initial models that were given as example are INVALID, I 100% agree.
Valid Examples in my opinion:
Spinners
Please, just a correction because @Johnny_Bit mentioned it again. No hate, no blame, just a valid example in my opinion. But i think it would be better if Malc would merge the dedicated ones like HawkEye, BlackWidow etc into a Marvel Fidget Spinner Collection… you get the idea. It´s not about the models itself, it about the distribution.
Hex Bins for GridFinity
Should we report the HexBins or similar now because they are scaled through regeneration in the sources? I do not think so. Should a migration path be offered to merge them into a single Model? Yes!
F1 Formular 1 Tracks
We had similar discussions in the past with a user in the past that decided to flood the platform with Hundreds of Car Silhouettes, he ended up merging them into a collection. See:
Previously all separate models…
Keyrings at some point each and every model was uploaded separate. I can only point out the great work of powerpillprints here. Building nice collections, carefully grouping and sorting them. Fantastic work! Would love to see more people taking this as an inspiration.
Or Malc with his Spinner inspired tea lights, again great job!
Anyway, the discussion is what you make of it - if you want to continue being negative and not wanting to provide useful feedback or suggestions. We continue to see this behavior. Intentionally and financially motivated or not.
We also seen the download/print farmers in action, getting the points for 10 downloads, and with 10 accounts and repeat. It was detected as unfair practice, resulted in massive spam of models, got patched.
If this is at some point seen a real problem by @MakerWorld and they stop being generous like Printables. Every small creator will lose, but it´s up 2 us all to see if the platform can keep up enabling small creators, or not.
We have seen cut´s in the past already, because people got greedy and cheated the system. We see the same with boost beggers and boost trading channels now.
In addition to all of that, not fixing the issue, or at least reducing the problem. It will result in users turning away from the platform, because it´s to cluttered, and SEO spammed.
While the original spinners I posted about technically have different geometry, the user is still flooding the site with what I would argue are functionally the same model. I do think that this should be taken into consideration to uphold the quality of the site.
I otherwise 100% agree with your other statements.
These examples you gave are especially egregious. So easy to overlay SVGs (of someone else’s IP nonetheless) on top of pre-existing models. There’s no reason these shouldn’t be different profiles of the same model.
The Avengers Marvel Fidget Spinner by MalcTheOracle - MakerWorld
DC Comics Fidget Spinner by MalcTheOracle - MakerWorld
Marvel MCU Logo Fidget Spinner by MalcTheOracle - MakerWorld
The Punisher Marvel Fidget Spinner by MalcTheOracle - MakerWorld
Hawkeye Marvel Fidget Spinner by MalcTheOracle - MakerWorld
Black Widow Marvel Fidget Spinner by MalcTheOracle - MakerWorld
Wonder Woman DC Fidget Spinner by MalcTheOracle - MakerWorld
Thor Marvel Fidget Spinner by MalcTheOracle - MakerWorld
Your original argument is demonstrably wrong.
As is this one, did you miss this when ignoring everything else.
As the self declared arbiter of standards you would assume the work of MW supersedes your own.
But, rather than gracefully backing away you continue to bang a broken drum.
Just wow. I skimmed this whole steaming dog pile.
Malc should not have been drawn into this for one complete reason, MW approves. Not a “looking the other way” or willful ignorance type of approving, but a whole acknowledgement (in writing) approvement.
I think here’s where it should have stopped.
I always get amused at those who think their standards are what everyone should live by. Personally I’d like every hero as a new listing because I don’t want to wade through profile after profile to find the hero and type I want.
This wasn’t a difference of opinions, it was “let’s mess with Malc”. You can try and call it something else, it isn’t.
Get off your high horses and go print.
I still don’t understand the concept of an exclusive model. I’ve read and reread the rules but I keep seeing things that have nothing to do with “exclusive model” according to the guidelines.
The most striking example for me is this
What makes the model unique if the design is exactly the same as this:
Reading the forum I saw points being excluded and subtracted from very different models
I would break the ice here for Pork3D - while it´s the exact same idea - the implementation seems to be quite different.
It´s not only a dimension change you will notice if you compare the models. The version from Pork3D in many ways more focussed on printability. It will result in far better prints than the one from Sakul. Also has a bigger hole for the fingers to open the box.
The one from Sakul allows more items to be placed inside, as it has sharp corners and not these extrem rounded corners inside. It also provides a drop out protection.
While they have the intended visual appear in common, these are totally distinct models that have not a lot in common otherwise. When we talked about minor differences, it was more in the direction of simple changes like dimensions, adding logos - etc.
If we take this example, best comparison here would be - it makes no sense that the 4 and 8 pin versions would be distinct models. But ship it in the same model file - so that’s fine, i guess.
This however does not go beyond the guidelines for exclusive models.
Makerworld “approves” every single model that is submitted to the program by default. I’ve personally reported 100+ models that do not meet standards of the exclusive program and 99% of them are removed. (I would be happy to provide receipts if that’s in question). It’s clear that Makerworld absolutely does not review every model that is submitted to the program and therefore there is no “approval” happening here.
The argument I am making here is that it should go against the guidelines, because this kind of slop degrades the quality of the site.