I... like these recent changes

MakerWorld
1

There’s been a lot of discussion here about the recent changes to Makeworld and it’s rewards system. I wanted to write this as a counter to some of the doom and gloom crowd currently predicting the death of Makerworld.

Mind you, the current implementation of the boost system isn’t even a week old, so how it pans out and how users adopt it and adapt to it has yet to be fully seen. It’s not fair to declare the system dead before even giving it a chance to be alive.

I’m not going to change the minds of most of those that are so robustly against the changes Makerworld has made, as it’s apparent their main interest in this platform, is those rewards. I can see that when what you value most is those rewards and the numbers that drive them, that I could provide no view of this situation that would be acceptable or ease those frustrations.

The platform as a whole provides a lot of value to me as a designer and as an end user that enjoys 3d printing. The value I find in the platform goes far beyond the rewards system, and isn’t the top priority of what I care about here. I’m sure some would argue that it’s easy for me to say that, given my position. I’m surely not affected the same as others, and I’ll give you that. I am where I am though because of the passion and love I put into my work.

I like the new system with the boost. I’ve gotten boost on popular models, I’ve gotten boost on more niche models. I’ve gotten boost from people I know and interact with, and I’ve gotten boost from random users I’ve never talked to.

From the day Makerworld posted up asking about our opinions on rewards as they relate to more complex models, or more niche models; it was an area I fell squarely into. Well, I may not have overly complex models, but they surely aren’t the quick prints that sometimes dominate the trending pages. It got me thinking a lot about that question though. I didn’t really feel undervalued in those areas. That feeling hasn’t changed with the introduction of the boost system.

To me, it seems like people are giving boost to models they vibe with, enjoy, and like! Certain models become popular because they resonate with people; just because you or I don’t find any particular value in a given model doesn’t mean others don’t.

One of the items I gave a boost too was a wildly popular model. Yeah, I read the brief, but you know what. That model was one I liked, appreciated, and use all the time. I enjoyed the whole concept of giving boost and all of that because if gave me a chance as a consumer to say I really like this!

I’ve gotten boost on some of my popular models, and from the comments I get, I realize it’s not about it being “popular”, it’s about what people get out of it. It’s the same truth for all those simple little trendy models; for whatever they are, people still find value in them and I don’t think we should berate or belittle users or designers for that.

When it comes to more complex models, I’ve always felt the love from the community. I have a few filament heavy designs, and I’m still humbled when I see people post prints of them. It’s an investment of their time and money, and a print gone wrong can be costly. Models like that can be costly even just to develop! The whole rewards system certainly helped those projects along, and I’m exceedingly grateful for that. Not just for Bambu, but for all of the users that have downloaded my work. Bambu may have distributed the rewards, but it was the users that downloaded my work, printed it, and showed that love, that helped me get there.

What make all of this stuff popular, and do well, is good design. People will show appreciation for good design, regardless if it’s simple or complex. When it comes to putting yourself out there like that, it’s not about how much time you put into it, or how complex it is; it’s about how it vibes with people. In this sense, I think the boost system is working. People are giving their boost to designers and designs that they vibe with. That includes niche and complex models, in addition to those ever popular ones.

The rewards are a nice motivational factor, and they do help contribute to the cost of it all. Anyone that knows me though, knows my top priority is just the love of design. I really like Bambu Studio, the print profile system. The introduction of maker parts on the Bambu store, and the BOM setup. A lot of this really helps me present things in a manner that’s easier for the end user. I kept calling it Complete off the Plate. This idea that the model is, or nearly, complete off of the plate. I’ve broken from that ideology some so I can toy with more complex designs, but the introduction of the BOM setup and the store carrying parts helps close that gap since it makes it easier for end users to find the needed parts. I hope to see this system greatly expanded upon! This is probably my favorite change with the latest adjustments to the site.

I think it’s difficult to motivate and reward complex well designed models in a catch all type situation like Makerworld has setup, while also preventing people from abusing it, or mis-using it. Good user-friendly design doesn’t just happen; it takes resources and experience. Bambu is taking a huge gamble with the rewards system, as it’s opening it up to everyone without any sort of real checks like you would have in a contract job, where you have to answer to a client, where you have to meet certain criteria. Some of the most skilled people at stuff like this are already out there working and making real money.

A lot of people take this system for granted in a way, and when I see people complain about it, I just roll my eyes as I think about the past many years doing 3d work for an endless list of toilet moving clients. I guess it’s all relative though, so what can I really say?

I love designing stuff for 3d printing. I love sharing my designs with others. For the past 18ish years, I’ve worked endlessly creating other people’s visions, and in this realm, I get to stand on the merits of my work, and let it shine on me.

The changes to the rewards system hasn’t destroyed or diminished the point for me. I enjoy Makerworld. I feel like I’ve been watching the website evolve and with each change, I’ve been finding even more reasons to like it. I don’t think every change is something I’d like, but overall I’ve been happy, to be frank.

I greatly appreciate the rewards system, and I can’t talk as if it hasn’t affected me in some manner because obviously it has. I don’t have a ton of money to go out and buy filament and stuff (I foolishly spent it all on the printers!), so those rewards have been part of my experience here too, but they aren’t the sum of my experience, and they don’t define my motivation. I’m interested in Makerworld continuing to support and refine the rewards system because it allows me to invest the time into furthering designs which I can in turn share on here. I think it’s much too soon to know how the boost system will play out, so how well it’s working, I don’t know.

I don’t have any gripes personally with the reduction in rewards given. I think for some, they obviously feel it a lot more than I do, so I’m sure my perspective is one that not everyone will want to agree with. The system as it was, was rather generous. More so than I think it had to be. Those reductions will help cut back on scammers/spammers, as it takes some of the value away, but I think that change had to happen in general, especially as the platform grows. I don’t personally need further explanation or justification. Makerworld is Beta, afterall. A beta I opted into using, and with that I agreed to all it’s limitations and the idea that everything can change right under me. It’s the way Betas go!

Ultimately, Bambu doesn’t owe me anything, and they aren’t the ones that dictate my success. That is something that happens between me and the kind folks that download and print my work. Whatever is going on with Bambu, it hasn’t changed that, it hasn’t taken away from that. This site in general is one of the first times I’ve really engaged with people, and taken a larger part in things, and the community.

I would encourage my fellow designers to not just take their toys and run home. If you want to leverage your work for monetary value, by all means! There’s sites like cults3d, or patreon, or even printables with it’s membership program. On Makerworld though, your customer isn’t Bambu, it’s the end users, the folks with Bambu printers, the fans of your work. It’s me too, because I’m not just a designer, but a customer of yours too.

17 Likes
2

Spot on. I like the potential direction this could go, its still way too early to knock it on the head. The problem is that it is introduced just as traffic and points have taken a dive, so naturally some are furious that its cut into their “profit”.

Hopefully it’ll settle down so we can get back to doing what we love.

7 Likes
3

Not going to take my models and run but the single color ones will not be exclusive to MW. Color prints will stay here. I probably won’t post as much now though. If every post requires a real print photo, I am eating the entire material cost now.

I too kind of like the Boost thing. Give it some time and it might take off. What I don’t like is MW not counting downloads. Even if some downloads don’t earn points, I want to know about them. At least I get the satisfaction of knowing somebody hopefully enjoyed my model.

I would hope MW is working on some tweaks to the system but as usual they are silent with the community. I think in the end their poor response to the community is what will put them in the back seat when Prusa, Creality and the other big boys release their new multi color printers (I guarantee their engineers are working overtime on new printers to compete)

4

Honestly, I think the Boost system could be great, but it’s highly dependent on the user community growing and feeling involved with Makerworld. It might take some time. There’s no direct incentive to use the Boost tickets and I’m afraid they’ll suffer from little to no use. Just like thumbs up or ratings that still have horrible ratio compared to the number of prints.
Overall I agree though. Recent changes are not bad and the reduction in points was expected. What I absolutely do not understand, nor like, is the notion of capping counting downloads per-day. Rewards aside, the download count is a useful stat, but these recent changes made it impossible to derive any useful information from it. I understand they wanted to discourage bots, but this seems like the wrong solution.

3 Likes
5

Firstly @Josh-3D I love your work, I’ve even added some profiles to your designs for things I wanted for myself and took the opportunity to add A1 mini support. We’ve even spoken in DM’s as I thought someone had stolen one of your designs.

I’m sure you’re aware there are many different opinions on the variety of changes that have happened in quick succession, yours is on on end of the spectrum, others at the other end and many somewhere in the middle.

There are different definitions of “owe me”. I take your version to mean that you have no expectation beyond that of providing your work to others and anything you gain beyond that is a bonus.

I fall into the camp of “the collective work here from designers has a calculable value in driving sales and goodwill in the direction of BL”. What monetary value that does or should equate to or nothing is the question.

I’m very aware of the beta label and the terms that state everything is subject to change.

I only create what I provide because I want to, I don’t do it for the points (that convert to monetary value) in the traditional sense. I do not make a living from this, I’m far too ill for that. My designs have to take into account I can barely move and have limited physical capability.

I use the increase in points as a way to judge how well my work is being received. I’ve found it far easier an indicator than the analytics which are rather a disappointing set of views given limited summaries or overviews.

I see the rapid reduction in the return on points as a direct devaluation of the sales/marketing return BL gets from MakerWorld.

BL stated that the primary reason for the largest reduction in points was to curtail the significant losses they were experiencing. I believe them that they were suffering from people gaining the system and that needed to be plugged. I also believe that getting rid of those people (thieves if you will) benefits the community as a whole.

If that was the reason for the changes then a few things don’t make sense.

  1. There are many ways to greatly limit those gaming the system that wouldn’t also cause such an impact to those not gaming the system and adding value.
  2. Why weren’t these mass downloading bad actors not curtailed long ago?
  3. If the loses were substantial, which I suspect them to be, then a large monetary value previously handed out them is no longer being handed out.
  4. Far less points are being given out now despite all those savings.
  5. Why aren’t there restrictions on the amount of points new users can gain after creating an account until a trust is built up.

I have more to share, but that is long enough (at least for now).

1 Like
6

Agreed. I imagine this is part of the plan.

For example; real-world gift cards work on the basis that ~20% are never redeemed and are pure profit for the business. Those have a monetary value incentivising the owner.

No such incentives for virtual things that don’t reward the person giving them out.

2 Likes
7

BambuLab already directly admitted that:

There’s no way they did not take that into account when doing their math. This behavior is wanted.

1 Like
8

I am curious: Would your statement have been the same if you had received only 20 boosts within a week instead of 160? I haven’t closely examined all the top creators, but it seems you’ve garnered the highest number of boosts thus far (congratulations, truly well-deserved).

While I’m not overly invested in this issue at the moment (though I do value a constructive dialogue about it), this is the aspect that troubles me the most: the assertion by MW that it isn’t a cutback. I’d find it more palatable if they straightforwardly acknowledged the need to reduce rewards because of the platform’s growing popularity and escalating expenses. The veiled maneuvering and lumping together of unrelated topics make me feel as though they’re trying to deceive us. Especially as people have to worm every word out of them.

Regardless of whether it’s in beta or not, they likely have a business plan detailing their strategy for the weeks and months ahead. Wouldn’t it be more straightforward and honest to openly state that the rewards program will undergo a reduction on XX/XX/XXXX from the start? In my opinion, this approach would lead to much higher acceptance. What do you think?

9 Likes
9

It’s these kinds of interactions that really drew me into Makerworld and it’s community. It’s what I keep wanting to be here for. I worked with people a few times on Mini profiles for my work, and it was always a highlight. The A1 Mini crowd in general

This could be said of a number of websites (Not just in the 3d printing space), including Printables. Printables is very much Prusa, and while it’s a wide open community, it’s driven and funded by the color orange, which in turn helps their orange shine a little brighter in the eyes of consumers.

They aren’t just using us though. I mean, we are part of the product, but we also gain something out of it too. People use Printables because they gain value out of it. I know Printables has it’s own point system, but I think we can be honest in saying that most people don’t give it much weight. The same sort of value that Printables offers is here at Makerworld. I’d argue that aside from the points system, Makerworld offers a touch more, especially for Bambu users.

Makerworld’s rewards system in general is very generous. To use it as a matrix for performance was bound to bring trouble. That reduction was going to come, no doubt about it. It’s a number of factors, and I don’t need Makerworld to spell it out to spare my feelings. I understand the reality of the world and what they’re trying to do. I know some people are trying to shift it to wanting more transparency from Makerworld when changes like this come, but even with that I don’t think it’s something that gets me so up in arms. I can certainly appreciate that people want Makerworld to be more forthcoming as they change things.

In the end, like I said, I joined this site knowing it was beta and taking with it an understanding of what that means. It means that everything can change under me, and they don’t owe me any warning.

In general, that also means that as they incorporate new ideas, features, systems, they don’t fully know how those systems will pan out until people start using them in mass. Like the boost system! It’s easy to plan out these great ideas, and they can even work well in limited test environments, but how they actually function once live is a whole different story and problems can quickly pop up. With that being said, it still takes more than a week to judge something like the boost system. It needs time to breathe and function, to come into it’s own.

The rewards system needed re-balancing, and part of that is reducing the payouts to more realistic levels. There was no keeping it where it was at. For the sort of money Bambu was paying, it wasn’t a good deal for them. I know the cost of production, or what it can be. Bambu probably got a good deal on some of the stuff that’s been contributed to the platform, but there’s certainly a number of things too where the payout didn’t equal the value of the product or the cost of labor in producing it. Bambu would get more value from it’s money at this point if they contracted designers directly. Where they can vet the designer, and have a say in the production to the extent of making sure the quality and end product meets the specifications they want for the platform.

I was excited to use the ones I got. I thought it was awesome. I am a big user of the website, so having that little extra something I can give to designs I personally like.

It’s unrealistic to have 100% user engagement on a platform. I mean, not everyone is going to like, comment, post makes. Not everyone has time for that, not everyone has the energy for that. We can’t force people to engage the platform. These arguments are used against the boost system, with complaints about how not enough people leave comments/ratings/whatever, already. I think these sorts of thoughts come from a place of entitlement though. You can’t control end users and they’ll do what they do. You can try and fight it, or you can accept that not everyone wants to engage the system at the same level. Just because not everyone chooses to engage the platform though doesn’t mean that it’s a failure, or a problem that will doom us, or whatever. With the boost system, it might need some balancing and tweaks, but how user engagement will look, we won’t even fully know for several weeks once we can see the system functioning day to day, once it has settled into it’s own rhythm.

It certainly makes it difficult to be a part of the discussion, as no matter what I say, that is a mark I will carry on me that others can easily use to wave away my own thoughts. It’s the first thing you brought up. In one full swoop of a statement, you were able to question the validity of everything I said. It makes your congratulations feel a bit less sincere as it’s on the heals of using that same data point to question my motives. It makes me feel like I can’t express myself because I’m not having the same bad time as everyone else.

1 Like
10

Whether you like it or not you are in the most biased seat in the house (I gave you a boost myself). I am with you that they could not keep the point system where it was at and agree that 100% user engagement is impossible. However, take a look at the rating system. How many people would give ratings if they didn’t get a few points in return? I share your excitement to use my boosts, but I fear that typical users are selfish and only want to give if they get something in return.

1 Like
11

I should have been clearer. My question was about your comment on enjoying the new system with boosts. I don’t understand why this would make you feel unappreciated or dismiss my entire post…

Your contributions to this forum generally strike me as balanced, and I cannot recall any instances of criticism towards MW. I am not suggesting that you must criticize them, but I detect some bias (which is perfectly fine). As that biased person I see you, I would have appreciated hearing your perspective on my point:

I don’t want to assume your stance, but it seems to me that you recognize this as the true motive behind the change without explicitly stating it, or that MW is being less than truthful about it. Not talking about the big elephant in the room seems weird to me.

I recognize there’s much more to discuss, yet I’m aware that at times my arguments may come across as overwhelming or aggressive to some. Therefore, I’ll refrain from further elaboration this time. Keep up the fantastic modeling work; your contributions truly enhance this site!

12

I’m gonna expand a little on what I said in that other thread. Yeah, getting people to engage the systems is always a challenge when there’s a lack of incentive. I think there’s some level of dopamine rush that can come with it, and I think that is more so than what one can get out of a review or rating. What I think time will tell is what level of user engagement there actually is there, and if that idea of a dopamine rush will follow through. I mean, the incentive is that good feeling of rewarding a particular designer.

If things don’t balance out though, it’s certainly a system that isn’t sustainable either. It should feel fair for everyone. Although there’s the idea/question of, how do you make things feel fair, but still have things that can achieve such wild popularity? There will always be some level of disconnect between the top designers and people just starting out. Especially when a model starts trending, they can have some wild success that sets it a part from other designs. It can be difficult to create a sense of balance when you see such wild swings. Not everything and everyone is on the same plane, and part of that is recognizing and accepting that.

1 Like
13

It comes from the same pool of feelings as this statement.

I feel a certain level of my perspective gets dismissed, or at least given less weight, simply because of the boost I got. It’s suggested well enough that my opinions are swayed by the abundance of boost given, and so makes me feel like the opinion I’d give would be dismissed because others would feel I’m out of touch.

It could be a question asked in good faith, certainly, but there’s a lot of heated debate going on too, so it doesn’t feel if we’re just talking datapoints and comparing notes. I mean, I shared an image showing the sudden drop I had in points, and got a little snap back. I just wanted to talk about data points though.

I don’t have any expectations that Makerworld will keep us informed on the details of the changes they’re planning, or what goes on behind the scenes. I have no expectation that Makerworld will be entirely forthcoming when it comes to announcing changes. To me, it seems they are as many large corporations are, and I treat them as such. The statements they release I give the same level of trust as I do any PR statement released by any company. I press D for doubt. I guess I carry a level of cynicism with me that just makes it not a big deal to me. They are what they are. I make use of their services and products, but they aren’t me.

I’m not always happy the way the world is, the way large corporations can be. I’d almost prefer it over the cult of personalities that crop up around certain manufactures and their CEOs, though.

In general, it doesn’t hinder my ability to function, to design, and 3d print. If they bork their whole company one day, it’s not that big of a deal to me because I’ll be able to carry on.

1 Like
14

I was ready for whatever change that’s coming to the rewards, I knew, like many others, that changes are coming and it won’t be as good as before.

The Boost is fine, it gives some power to the users, but I know what’s popular will be popular and most boosts will be given to popular models, few will be given to models that didn’t get as much attention. But that’s ok, because it motivates me to make more popular models, and work on my presentation.

The real problem here, however, is the fact that they’ve made analytics pretty much useless by not counting downloads after a certain number, and stopped counting makes when they have the means to do that. I don’t know what’s the answer to battle spammers and scammers, but nothing good will come with messing with the data.

4 Likes
15

Yeah. They are trying to use the same data stream for points as the analytics, but it messes up the purity of the analytics. I want to see the actual prints on a multi-plate print! Not just the first print. Especially for modular sets, it’d be useful, because it helps show how much people are actually printing it beyond the initial interaction.

It’s a curious thing though. On like thingiverse, I realized at some point that there’s a level of downloads that are just bots/scrapers. Those data points can muddy the waters of what actual user engagement is looking like.

I think it’s fine if they want to filter the data for the point calculation, but they should still feed us raw numbers for the analytics.

In general though, I’m not sure I ever thought downloads was a good datapoint for calculating rewards. The print totals is what peeked me more.

3 Likes
16

The problem is they are effectively taking 70% of points from some users, and then using those same points to pay for every boost handed out on the whole site.

17

I don’t really care one way or another, but I will say that makers with a large number of followers/popular models are probably going to be the only ones that see the real benefits of boosting. For the average user one or two boosts doesn’t move the needle. It all comes down to catching lightning in a bottle or doing a bunch of self promotion to build a base of “fans”.

3 Likes
18

Robin_Hood_Disney_character
This guy did that and he was legendary!

3 Likes
19

Robbin Hood, a fictional character, was stealing from a government (tax collectors, etc) who overtaxed all the people.

People who put time into creating models are not a government overtaxing people.

In the MW case, Robbin Hood would actually “represent” returning points that have effectively been taken from people. Points that are currently being taken from some users, to fund all the boosts.

20

That’s not really what he did. He took to the rich to give to the poor ^^