I recently received a low rating on a print profile and the user cited a couple of issues.
The model is a print in place and specifically says an AMS is required. The model contains multiple parts for easy painting, but they are intended to be printed all at once. The user separated these parts and printed them separately, then they complained that the parts were small and difficult to work with.
They also complained that some of the parts broke easily, which again I believe is the result of them separating the parts and who knows whatever other modifications they made to the profile.
I reached out to the user, but as often happens, there was no reply.
I reported the review to Makerworld, with an explanation and photos, but I didn’t receive a reply from Makerworld, either.
The low rating is still up.
I would expect that if someone modifies your profile and then has issues with the print, they own the problems and shouldn’t be able to give a bad review to the maker.
I’ve reported this rating for a 2nd time, since I never got any response to my 1st report.
Here’s what I said and I included a couple of photos to support my argument:
I’m requesting that this rating be taken down.
Reason: The user made significant changes to my print profile and then complained about the changes that they made.
This is a print-in-place model with several small parts that are intended to be printed together. The print profile specifically states that an AMS is required. This user separated the parts and printed them separately, then complained that the parts were small and difficult to work with.
The user also complained that the ears broke off easily. There is a height range modifier in the print profile that sets the ears to print at 100%. It’s likely that the user accidentally disabled this modifier, while making their modifications.
I have replied to the user and asked them to verify that the ears printed solid, but have received no reply, photo, etc. to support their claim.
I don’t think there is a way for me to do this, but even if I could, I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and not do this, unless the user were to become abusive. If that were to happen, I would just block and report them.
The only exception that I could think of is changing to a different brand of filament. Like if the 3mf says Bambu PETG HF, but someone wants to print it in some Sunlu PETG.
But if something is meant to be printed in PETG, dont print it in PLA sparkle or some cheap rainbow crap from aliexpress
I don’t think that applies. The filament can change to whatever you want to use. The speed of which filaments print is controlled on the filament profile anyway.
There shouldn’t be separate 3MF’s for a certain type of filament. This is why Bambu lets you pick whatever filament you want when starting a print from the app.
I am not referring to filament profiles. We are rating print profiles, but the success of the print profile on the correct filament choice.
An exaggerated example, if someone posts a print profile intended for ABS, but someone prints it in PLA, you should not be able to complain that the print print profile has a strength issue, or the model does not perform as intended.
But you are talking about filament profiles. A filament selection in the slicer is exactly that, a filament profile. Print profiles are basically everything except the filament, the way the machine prints the model. Not what material you’re using
Using your example, that is where instructions come into play. If the uploader uploads a model that is designed for a certain filament, this should be noted in the description. This attribute is model and filament specific, not print profile specific. I agree with you that those should not be something to complain about in a print profile review. I say this because the rating for the print profile isn’t for those. What it is for is to judge how well the machine printed according to the settings the upload has. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.