This part is interesting. Not only because it’s the first time i hear about it, but also because there are lots of AI generated content out there that are not only deceiving, but poorly made and yet, no punishments have been applied as far as i know.
I sure hope that this exclusive program gets to a point where it serves its intended purpose but also serve as a boost for us, the “small” creators, instead of favoring the already “big dogs”, as usual.
Creating a successful filament clip involves more than meets the eye. With hundreds of different filament brands, each with unique spools, finding a size and grip strength that fits them all is tough. You also have to test for durability, reusability, and more. I do believe that the success of my clips reflects the effort I put into them.
That being said, I’m not offended and I even agree with you. It’s clear to me now that BambuLab isn’t looking for filament clips for this exclusive program, though what they do want remains unclear.
I want to clarify that my issue isn’t that my clips got rejected. My problems are:
1. There were no clear guidelines from the start, so no one knew what was eligible or not. Even after the amendments, the guidelines leave much to be desired.
2. People are being punished by losing all the points they accrued, not just the extra 25% from the program. Since they didn’t have all the information when they joined, this doesn’t seem fair.
3. People who joined before the clarifications are now trapped. They can’t opt out, and they know that all the points they’ve gained will likely be gone, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, or next month. The later it happens, the worse it is.
In general, this was a good idea, and despite the poor implementation, I think it has potential. I just hope MakerWorld does the right thing and doesn’t make the creators pay for what was a poorly executed rollout. I understand these things take time to polish, but until then, please don’t punish the creators.
Here’s what I think can be done to improve it:
1. Get everyone off the program and give them their points back.The ones they would have gained if the program did not exist
2. Clearly state what kind of models you are looking for and be as specific as possible.
3. Allow creators to submit their models for approval first instead of immediately enrolling them and then removing them. It’s a more sustainable solution.
4. For those who will inevitably abuse the system by repeatedly submitting models that, based on the clear guidelines, are not eligible, simply block them from participating.
Welp, guess I’ll be screwed soon.
Look at this picture and then read the wiki-description.
Do you have such a more exclusive (elaborate) model? Do you have a larger model that you yourself are surprised at how printable it is or how well it works? Have you marvelled at the first, almost flawless print of this model? Have others marvelled at your model? - Congratulations on your exclusive model!
I’d contact support and talk to them, and explain it. I’m not always so sure Bambu has the best communication, but generally speaking, I think reaching out and explaining your side of things is a good step in getting things resolved in a way that doesn’t cause more gotchas.
It’s a little bit of a rocky rollout, I don’t think anyone is denying. I’m sorry to everyone that has run up against troubles. I can imagine how stressful and/or discouraging it can feel. I’ve been realizing/thinking how easy is to set things to exclusive. There’s no safety net or guide rails really, and I think if one isn’t paying careful attention it’s easy to get bit, as evidenced here.
I’m of the personal opinion that only the bonus portion of the points should be removed, if found ineligible, but that any regular points accumulated should stay. I mean, as it is now, it’s been too easy for people to fall into these problems, so I think some leeway is warrented.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe I’m just a fool who didn’t understand the simple message MakerWorld was conveying. I do get some comfort from knowing that thousands of other creators seem to have missed it too.
When I look at pictures like that one, it reminds me of the pictures for the contests. Does this jet engine picture represent the standard expected from participants? Personally, I never interpreted it that way.
I had some time to think and I have some further suggestions to Exclusive model guidelines.
Part 1: Eligibility
I think the “fulfil one requirement: Accumulated print exceed 100 on MW” is very low barrier to entry. I get that it might be made that way in order to entice creators whose main platform is not MW, but you could set that number to something more respectable and in case of enticing creators from outside platforms you could put a sort of integration that would count the downloads on external platform at either full or fraction of download on MW.
You could also do a nod to honest creators by barring from entry into exclusive program people who violated general MW rules for limited time, say “your account shall have no rule violations in last X days in order to be eligible for EMP”
With eligibility criteria you could combine something like known quality model requirement, but that would not work with external platforms suggestion above… I think raising the entry barrier would do wonders.
Part 2: Quality Requirement, Originality
As I mentioned earlier, the models you’ve chose as examples are of very high standard, literally contest winners and featured models, that were subjectively judged. There’s some information one can get from those, but it’s not outright stated. You ought to get some decent models that weren’t entered into contest and weren’t featured yet IMHO. Also you should show “good” models that do not meet your criteria.
In next paragraph you say that remixes or models such as “simple phone case with no standout features are more likely not to be welcomed in the program”. This is very nice and very subjective wording that has measurable consequences for creators who think their model is “good enough” but in reality isn’t. Why not outright state that remixes are not allowed? And in originality you could also state that another version/update of existing model (eg “awesome thing v5 - now even more awesome”) are also not allowed.
The hints for design concept are nice, but those better match as an answer for a topic that’s on MW forum “how to make popular model” instead of answer to originality, especially the “identify designs that are commonly used in everyday life but are missing 3d models” - that’s not really originality, more like inspiration for useful design.
I think you should state that any model entered into program should differ significantly from existing models in form/function/innovation/design etc and have some sort of explanation for the originality statement. I could be some sort of vetting process, where creator could submit the “exclusive candidate” model and in case someone doing the vetting not being sure could mark this for question and let the creator have a say.
Part 3: Quality: details and accuracy
First thing that pops up is: "AI generated content and Hueforges or other 2D designs will be removed from the program.’ - this, while correct and does line with expectations regarding exclusive modes, is IMHO wrong way to go about this. There’s already “Generative 3D Model” section in MW, you could quite easily bar anything in that category from entering EMP, preventing the problem. You should also replace “will be removed from” with “are not eligible to enter”. If you implement my suggestion of barring “Generative 3D model” section, you should also explain that skirting the rules and putting generative model in different category will result in removal.
The bullet points in this section are quite frankly a problem. First:
Structurally sophisticated models are more likely to become popular and receive increased exposure on MakerWorld.
That doesn’t sound like eligibility criteria at all and is instead a recommendation on “how to get more publicity” question. I’d recommend removing it and opting for objective and quantifiable measures. For example, even the lightest sample model is over 300 grams of filament, so you can say that the model should be of minimum certain weight. Or if sophistication is required then with access to 3mf file you can judge the geometry and asses complexity via vertex count?
2nd:
Include a Print Profile that achieves optimal print quality. List recommended filaments, colors, and print settings.
You ought to state that print profile is required, has to be created by designer and follow all the print profile requirements. Print settings are embedded in the print profile so I don’t think it’s necessary to point that out. Since the print profile contains filament info that too is covered by profile requirement… The filaments and colors could be a bonus TBH. You COULD require that the model be multi-color but I don’t think it matches with details&accuracy.
3rd:
A clear and comprehensive Assembly Guide is suggested for all multi-part models.
That’s another suggestion instead of requirement. Just state that assembly guide (either in the description text or attached as assembly guide) is required for multi-part items and items with more than one BOM entry (because I don’t think adding an assembly instruction of “put the magnet in magnet places, voila!” is necessary assembly guide.
Part 4: Quality: Functionality
The 1st point in the functionality section is:
Your model should solve specific problems and provide assistance to users. Explain why your design is necessary and how it helps in your model description.
1st part is again “how to get more popular”. You could change that to be, in case of functional models, an usage guide.
2nd point:
Videos or GIF instructions are highly recommended to demonstrate the practicality of your model.
This is another very good tip on “how to get popular”. You could change that to be something along the lines of: “In case of models with moving parts or with unconventional usage, a video/gif of the model in action is recommended/required.” If you go with recommended, then in case you feel like model entered into EMP should have video you should then contact the creator to request video and not have the model pulled from EMP. If you go with “required” you’d need a review process that can asses whether the model is moving/unconventional.
For functional models you could require a testing in usage, so if a model has usage section, you could as the creator to check a checkbox “i’ve tested the model and it functions as designed” or in usage section to add video of the model in use.
Part 5: Quality: Aesthetic/Fun Appeal
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as old saying goes and this section presents quite a challenge in making it objective. In opening paragraph you state: " showcase your model in its ideal setting and demonstrate its true value" - this is great, but I must ask you to require here that since you require “true value” the photos in “ideal setting” must not be AI-generated. You might even go further and require “only real photos, no photoreal renders (renders are cool as long as it’s for showing some hidden details)” This also goes with 2nd bulletpoint of showing where model fits. A good idea here would be to require scale comparison photo where a model would be placed in a way that shows it’s real scale.
On the 1st bullet point:
Tell a compelling story. Share the inspiration behind your designs and explain why this particular model will bring joy and satisfaction once printed.
Telling a compelling story is great as a general suggestion for writing good description. Requirement of sharing inspiration behind design might be interesting and provide some value, however “why [the model] will bring joy and satisfaction” is pure marketing speak and IMHO isn’t necessary.
Part 6: Submission process
The 1st point is quite similar to print profile requirements. Given the Quality section, you can simply state in point 1 that the upload must meet all the objective quality requirements. In case of photos you IMHO need to clearly state that exclusive models cannot use deceptive techniques in cover images (eg: AI generated renders, photorealistic renders that give wrong impression of scale and/or results achievable by print)
Point 2:
Documentation: Provide comprehensive documentation, including thorough model description, model photos, usage instructions, and any relevant information needed for a successful print.
Here you could IMHO automate and make objective checks, eg: require higher character count in model description, higher number of photos, detect “usage” section and act upon it, if there’s a BOM of more than 1 part check if there’s assembly instruction attached or usage section added.
3rd point is where you can and should make changes:
Submission: When uploading your model to MakerWorld, check the box on the Edit Model page for submission. Once successfully uploaded, your model will be a MakerWorld Exclusive Model.
Have more checkboxes there, like the type of model for EMP (functional, aesthetic/fun appeal etc) so you have more data to work with, have creator check boxes that agree to specific, applicable parts of guidelines/policy so that there’s no surprises in case the model gets removed from EMP… And last part: “Once successfully uploaded, your model will be a MakerWorld Exclusive Model.” is IMHO no-go with current guidelines that are quite subjective as evidenced by LightBulb’s and MalcTheOracle’s experience. Maybe introduce “Exclusive verification queue” or some more complex automated process that would prevent non-fitting models from being entered and then punished for being “bright eyed optimists” and not actually malicious actors.
Part 7: Community engagement
I previously said that interactions on platform are quantifiable by you, so you can use interaction criteria as a requirement for creators before entering EMP. With exclusive models you could add requirement of responding to comments of users in first 90/14 days (depending on the chosen type of EMP). Have the system issue warns if the comments aren’t replied to in sensible timeframe (but not turn it into a job for creators) and prevent participation in EMP for creators failing to reach interaction goals. That’s way more objective than current “Interactions: Actively respond to user feedback and questions.”
The 2nd point is a bit problematic. Currently it says:
Promotion: Promote your model within the community and on social media. A wider audience enhances the benefits your model brings to the entire MakerWorld community.
Currently there’s no way for creator to promote model within community on MW (well, maybe except this forum and “Share your prints” section). The social media aspect is a bit hard: what if creator doesn’t want to go into the mess that’s called “social media”? What if their only online outlet is MW? This is the place where I feel like promotion should be recommendation and only for those with pre-existing online presence and not forced.
Part 8: Maintenance and updates
I get why this section exists, but it’s hard to justify the language of it. Lets start with 1st sentence:
Exclusive Models must be regularly maintained and updated to ensure the printing quality, effect and accuracy of exclusive models.
First - there’s no need to update and maintain models that do not need to be updated, so the wording should be that the models must be good and tested from the get-go and that’s covered by quality requirements in previous sections. This should mean that models should be updated only when necessary, such as when users report problems (which is covered by “bugfixes” point) or in order to take advantage of opportunities offered by newer printers/firmware/slicer settings.
The 1st point:
Bugfixes: Address any reported issues or bugs promptly.
As I’ve said previously the point it’s ok, but what do you mean by “promptly”? There’s a big difference between small change such as BOM entry mistake or Assembly clarification and needing to remodel big part of model (say the model uses imperial units for some hardware things and is unusable in metric world) so the timeframe has to be reasonable and some clear way to allow creator to track that. Current comment system is not fit to do that, nor is the rating system.
The 2nd point:
Enhancements: Periodically update your model with optimizations and improvements.
Is more of a subjective problems and deciding whether to release “v2” or update model, which is not clear in both cases. First: “periodically” - how frequent do you mean? And why if there’s no need - it needs to be clear that improvements are optional unless there’s clear opportunity for creator to improve model while not making it totally different? And optimizations can mean different things to different people, like many creators notice where they get new print profile with weakened infill on structural part (“oh, it prints faster and uses less filament!”- and creator says: yes, but it’s less structurally sound!). And with improvements in model you have ship of Theseus: if creator improves a part, then another and another… Is this the same model or completely new one? This also causes a bit of a problem: If creator decides a new model is warranted due to inadequacies in previous totally fine exclusive model and wants to do v2, the new model might be seen as a non-original creation and not fit in the exclusive program… This might be a gray area. Maybe when doing “v2” of exclusive model the old one can be taken off the exclusive and new one put in? Speaking of that - maybe introduce a versioning system? I’ve seen couple creators already saying something like that would make their lives easier, especially a way to announce to followers and people who printed the model that new version is available (this will go in hand with community engagement section).
Part 9: intellectual property
Splitting this section in 2 points is totally unnecessary. The 2nd point says:
Infringement: Ensure your model does not violate the intellectual property rights of others.
Which is covered by originality requirement earlier. As an addendum you could clarify in the originality section that any items infringing on intellectual property rights are out. This would require very through analysis, like for example “Steamboat Willie” is in public domain, so any work based on it is not infringing, but is it original? And is a detailed model of Disney castle that is of very high quality an original creation or nah?
That leaves only the 1st point relevant. But that point has it’s problems.
Upload your Exclusive Models using Standard Digital File License.
It was reported that models that switched from CC to SDFL licence were turned into exclusive models. I think it would be for the best if models that did the switch were ineligible for Exclusive Model status (with maybe some short period of allowance, say if within X minutes or hours of posting (after verification) the creator edits and switches to SDFL it allows exclusive, but more than that and no exclusive for that model)
Ensure your Exclusive Model’s exclusivity on MakerWorld and report any possible theft swiftly, as it could affect your model’s Exclusive status.
I don’t like the language here. As evidenced by threads in the forum, creators are always surprised to see their models being stolen and constant vigilance of plethora of places where models could end up goes above standard requirements for intellectual property protection. What this part should say is that the creator, by entering exclusive model program, says that the model hasn’t been uploaded anywhere else thus MW is the exclusive location where the model is available. This can be checked by checking upload dates in external platforms: if it’s before the date of upload to MW, then creator is in the violation; if the date is after the date of upload to MW, then, assuming creator is being honest, it’s stolen model and should not affect exclusive status of model on MW, but rather be a call to action for creator, MW and external platform when contacted.
If you have trouble removing suspicious models from other platforms, contact us immediately for official copyright support.
This is cool, but as I said - if it’s not the creator’s fault that the exclusive model (that’s available for free on MW mind!) got uploaded somewhere else, then it should not affect exclusive status of the model on MW.
What you could do here, what’s currently handled by topics in the forum, is a way for creators and good users, to report thefts of exclusive models to MW and the creator in case it’s user report. Maybe dedicated section in the forum would be enough, maybe a dedicated monitoring process would be required… It’s up to you.
Part 10: final wording
The final 2 paragraphs are quite bright-eyed and idealistic or marketing speak. I hope it’s the former. If that’s the case, I have ideas on improving those a bit:
In the 1st paraghraph there’s “Models that meet the statndards […] will have elevated exposure” - that we’ve seen in practice 
the only problem is/was the initial rollout with flood of “exclusive” models that met the subjective criteria of users submitting them 
and the 2nd part of that sentence is: “and a greater chance of being presented on our official social media” - this could be made a bit more enticing with saying that featured models will be chosen only from exclusive models or maybe if the model’s not exclusive and you want to feature it on the platform and/or social media you’d ask the creator to enter the model into exclusive program?
The 2nd paragraph is IMHO not needed or needs total rewording. Maybe as a mission statement of EMP go like: “MakerWorld’s Exclusive Model Program’s goal is to showcase the highest quality and most original models in order to foster a vibrant and innovative community.”
Sorry for the wall of text
You know, the more “ideas” you guys come up with the more it sure sounds like gatekeeping.
I am curious. If it’s Makerworlds playground, why so much concern? Is it you don’t want to be grouped with others, or you’d like to make sure you get more points than the next guy by having less competition?
I haven’t heard BL come out and say “Hey we don’t like this, how about you guys just re-write it all for us.”
Or did I miss that? You folks are going beyond suggestions and taking it upon yourselves to overhaul the damn thing.
Insufferable.
You’ve got nothing to apologize for. Dedication like yours, pouring personal time into giving thoughtful and constructive feedback, deserves recognition. I truly hope @MakerWorld takes the time to read your insights carefully and shows the appreciation you rightfully deserve. There are a lot of excellent recommendations in there.
for me it’s pretty simple, if you don’t agree with the exclusive model approach, then don’t put your models as exclusive, easy fix 
if enough people stop using the exclusive option, they will need to rethink and come back with a better solution.
actions speak louder than words
No, now you know that’s not how it works.
Complain, tell Bambu how bad they are at doing something, stomp your feet until you get your way.
For someone small like me that works full-time(ish) and has a family this has actually earned me a whopping 100 pts in 2 days. Usually takes a week or so.
But hey, let’s start eliminating anything that didn’t take a week to come up with, another week to test, and then 4 days to print. That’s exclusive buddy! Screw you little guys.
Now if that’s not the message, go back and look at it, because that is exactly the message that is in this thread.
yeah i get your point, but for me when i first saw this program and especially the “exclusive” part and how they painted it, it looked to me that there would be interesting designs only (they can be simple and still be interesting), but if you click on new uploads and exclusive, you see that it’s pretty much a sea of everything, good, bad and everything in between, without any criteria - which bambu stated that it would have
you may disagree with how i see it and that’s fine, but for me this is not really interesting, i have two exclusive models because i jumped on the bandwagon and then find out they have to stay that way for 90 days, otherwise i would most probably remove the exclusive “tag”
it’s not to say that i think my designs are the best, but i do like to share on other platforms, especially printables, and it’s not so much about having points (printables isn’t great for that), it’s about sharing designs, getting feedback and see what works so that i can keep improving
They threw this out of the exclusive program.
It took a significant time to create, test, over a hundred prints, writing and rewriting the code, reviewing the parameters to make sure they made sense to the average user.
It is the 3rd version, the 4th version was (past tense) due to be uploaded this week.
Well over a thousand downloads, the second most popular in its category. I helped others who built theirs solve their problems. I interact with every single question, comment, rating and Boost that leaves a comment.
It isn’t available anywhere else. ALL the other QR Code generators that added theirs to the exclusive program are still in it.
What is wrong with this that makes it ineligible?
The notice it was removed doesn’t bother to say which unwritten rule caused its removal.
Yet, it was removed. It’s hard to think MW/BL are not targeting me right now.
I hear “exclusive” and I think, just here, on makerworld.
I see it as an attempt to keep models here and not showing on Makeronline or any other site. I really think that’s the very reason there are 90 day and 14 day timelines. Keep your stuff here. Really the points cost BL little to nothing. Even then the traffic makes up for whatever investment into your files they give you.
I don’t see “exclusive” in this context as anything but that. It’s a 3D print file, not something uber fancy or expensive, or a collectable everyone would want. I don’t see any prestige in having an excluse 3D print.
I think without proper guidelines a good wording this is very open to interpretation. Like for me the word “exclusive” was more about exclusive to MakerWord because they want something other sites don’t have.
Also I contacted support and asked them to remove my models from exclusive program.
well if you check the blogpost here, they announced some guidelines as well:
For information on our expectations of model quality and where to submit your models to the Exclusive Model Program, please refer to our Exclusive Model Guidelines.
so you and i interpret the progam differently, which is fine for me, if you are happy with it good for you
Bambu Lab has been anything but consistant in it’s messages regarding MakerWorld. I don’t know if it gets lost in translation or just plain deceit, but how often have we read one thing and have seen another.
If they don’t want my stuff, ok. Give it back. I’ll put it up elsewhere and stop here.
Exactly x2.
You call something exclusive and lean on the need to be exclusive and ignore and blur all other unwritten requirements and provide no examples it is EXCLUSIVE.
If you wanted something considered more premium or each model has significantly more effort involved or worse to push your MakerOnline service (I notice those are not being pulled call it something more appropriate.
Something relevant.
But no, bait and switch the whole thing.
You have to wonder if the removal of all the points from their idiotic and subjective views is a way to pay out less money. Trap people who believed what was originally written and then they have 90 days to steal back the effort your models were rewarded with.
Disgusting and despicable behaviour or more of the same.
Well but they could say the strict “Don’ts” right where you click to put the model in to exclusive program. I get that they say it somewhere. But they didn’t in the info that got to me.
Also in that blog post there is nothing about HueForges for examlpe.
