Yeah you’re right, but you’re still very active on MakerWorld and have a ton of downloads, the other user though has some nice models but not so many models/downloads yet so a verification might not be within grasp yet
This was my experience as well.
Anyone wanting verification should read Account Verification Status
Yeah it’s depressing these days when it comes to a whole “Check Mark”. I’m very active in and outside the printing community as well amongst social media platforms just not youtube because I don’t see having enough time to make it worth it for me or my team.
I’ll try the emailing method in hopes of that working. It’s just very odd to see the checkmark only on handy app but not on desktop webpage or mobile…
1 Like
I believe that bambulab has put some sort of block on accounts/serials of printers used for points manipulation.
1 Like
That’s what I did. I just emailed and within a hand full of days I got a response. I just provided everything I could think of to verify who I am, which basically was links to my printables and thingiverse accounts, since they share a lot of the same models.
2 Likes
I printed something from someone yesterday. The model has two plates. I have not received a notification to rate it. I can’t rate it either. However, the model has already received ratings from other people, 5 ratings, with more than 300 downloads. I think there is indeed something wrong with the rating system.
Is it possible that you have incognito printing enabled?
Yes, it is activated:
Note: if incognito printing is enabled, you cannot re-print jobs (sent from Bambu Studio) from the print history anymore.
It should therefore have no effect on whether you can rating a modell from other users.
No history of print = no ability to rate. Incognito is keeping them from appearing
1 Like
1 Like
Then a lot of people seem to be incognito on Makerworld, that some models become not a single rating.
Then Bambulab will hopefully change that soon.
1 Like
I think there is no reason to change that. It´s the same for telemetry data if you opt out, you opted out. No one will care about your problems, can proactively solve the issues in your logs, etc.
If you want privacy, you got it.
But your stuff needs to be private then.
Do not confuse the protection of private data with a rating function. This is obviously the mistake Bambulab has made. Because if it is precisely this circumstance that leads to mass non-assessment, it can only be a design error in the software or the software concept.
You need to have a verified state of the print, which needs to be submitted and verified by the remote endpoint, needs to include logs, etc.
So you need to submit a lot of information:
- Print Result
- Print Statistics
- Hashvalue of the model/print plate
- Username
- IP Address
- Authentication
- Logs to validate
From a quick view, all that information needs to be logged.
With a system that is set to private, I would want this information to be transmitted.
To implement this, you would need to opt-out for a single action and approve the data that needs to be submitted. A lot of work to get this confirmed and reliable, it´s not worth the effort.
Edit:
To get this even further, a system is set to private, and should not provide information about successful prints. Because they would need to be logged, then you are not private anymore.
Why shouldn’t you keep the data in the app until printing is complete or until the user has decided in favour of or against a rating? If the user wants to rate, then I know that they have printed because I keep the data in the app. The data doesn’t have to find its way out into the free world (exactly what was printed, when, from where and on which printer). There are ways to do this that are not as complicated as you might think.
PS: The only data that still needs to be transferred after the local (non-public) verification has taken place is the data for the rating (text and points, and of course the Makerworld account to which the rating is linked).
Well, I get it and I would not consider it a big problem when the software was closed source. But as it is open source, and I can compile it myself anytime with any changes I want, I would not consider any local verification a trustworthy source.