As I wrote in another topic. I have 10 gift cards under review. Now I have received 2x 2 boosters from two unknown users who have no downloads or prints. What’s more, 2 boosters arrived at 9:15, and two at 10:35. Now i will definitely be banned for suspicious activity. Should I report this? Although, it’s probably too late. Like an organized action.
The level of shady we’re experiencing at this point, yeesh. I still haven’t heard back from support on my ticket, since their initial message that didn’t acknowledge any of my questions or provide a useful direction.
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Has Makerworld gone cuckoo?
I wouldn’t judge it so quickly. It worked for Stack Overflow and the entire Stack Exchange series of sites. I never cared for the gamification stuff there, but I can’t deny the success. There’s nothing monetary at all there, but it quickly became a de-facto monopoly site for software developers, as well as lot of other topics.
For the record, I have no opinion on the subject (so far) and have barely scratched the surface reading about the problems it’s causing. And there’s quite possibly a solution other than abolishing it entirely (possibly modeled after something Stack Exchange does to self-moderate…).
But as it is now, it “feels” like a system that’s already collapsing to me.
1 Like
People are being quite nasty to you. I do not believe your suggestion was done with haste, but altruism is not popular.
I get you want a system that rewards status, but i also get that once capitalism is introduced, very few will support removing it.
I am not opposed to capitalism and the Chinese have picked up on this desire of the masses very well over the last 40 years or so. But i do agree that it must be regulated.
Despite what some may say, there are a lot of complaints both in this forum and on Reddit about points, just as you said. I also do not think MW would disappear if points were a status symbol. It would likely not receive as many new entries, and thus likely contract, but it would still be here.
It is very hard to leave decisions up to computer algorithms, but this is where we are in the world and almost no one is as altruistic as they either used to be or as they could.
As a result, although i believe your idea was meant to help many experiencing issues with points, you will be kicked to the curb for suggesting such a change and accused of overreacting and being selfish, all due to you wanting to do something to help a service you enjoy and want others to enjoy as you do.
I appreciate the courage it took to voice your opinion.
2 Likes
What the OP is suggesting basically is switching to a Stack Exchange reward model. Which worked for its purpose of making that collection of sites popular… but it did bring its own problems too. You would have to expand on it to try making it work with a financial incentive, and maybe it would still fail.
I don’t participate in the reward system, but I do like the idea of people getting a reward for donating designs to the community if they want one.
Does the point system work well as designed? Going by the complaints, it doesn’t seem like it.
So if that’s the case, looking for a different system that works better and rewards designers better than the current system is a good goal. So far that system has been elusive; but maybe it’s because everyone is too focused on trying to fix the current one.
Does the point system work well as designed? Going by the complaints, it doesn’t seem like it.
I would personally disagree with this assessment. All we can conclude from the complaints is that people complain. We don’t have a metric against which to judge the number or nature of complaints against.
For example, if for every 2 complaints about points, 1 person feels they work well, that’d be a clear indicator that the points system is a net negative. However, if it’s 1 complaint for every 2 positive sentiments, that’d suggest the inverse.
People will always complain and to be honest negativity is kinda incentivised by any playform/space where people can share opinions. Even my comment here may prove that. I’m disagreeing with you, which is typically perceived as a negative interaction. Even if you respond to me in good faith, if you also disagree with me, that’s a negativity loop, which self-perpetuates as we go back and forth. However, if you agree with me, our interaction kinda just ends. Hence why negative interactions, either direct or indirect such as complaining, propagate more readily.
I would hope Bambu does surveys across the community to determine random samples of sentiment towards the various schemes and incentives, rather than relying just on those that volunteer “feedback”.
3 Likes
Valid point!
But if you don’t want the interaction to end, I’m sure we could find something to argue about. 
1 Like
Its also worth adding that vocal minorities always skew the visible metrics, people have no incentive to say when things are just working, the people who have had a bad time however, those will always show up, only bambu has the real numbers, but i would always urge people to take small amounts of negativity and complaints with a grain of salt
If however there were dozens of tens of thousands of people sat here complaining, well that might be a different story, but as it stands, the negativity seems to be mostly of the vocal minority department, it was the same when the firmware backlash happened, the number of complaints didn’t really indicate a massive issue but rather a small subsection being upset
A very valid point I completely missed (look at me, trying to continue a positive interaction! be the change you want to see, lol).
It’s very hard to incentivise positive interaction because of the expectation problem—people don’t notice when things meet expectations, only when they fail to (or more rarely, exceed them).
Money can make people do crazy things.