Question / feedback about the new photo check on older models

MakerWorld
1

Hi MakerWorld team,

I would like to give some feedback about the new automatic check that seems to verify whether uploaded models have real photos.

I fully understand the idea behind this rule. MakerWorld should encourage real printed models, not just renders or theoretical uploads. That makes sense, and I support that.

However, it seems that this automatic check is now also being applied to models that were uploaded months or even years ago, and that were already accepted and published. In my case, one of my models was suddenly flagged as not having a real photo, even though the main image clearly shows the actual printed model.

To prove that the model is real, I had to take a new photo and even make a video of the model. Luckily, I still had the physical print. But if I did not have it anymore, I would have had to print the model again just to satisfy an automatic check. That feels unnecessary, especially because it leads to extra plastic use for no real purpose.

The model in question is a very niche model, but it has 110 downloads, 24 direct prints and 24 boosts. That may not sound huge compared to popular models, but for a niche electronics workstation, that is actually a good signal. Especially the boost-to-print ratio shows that the users who printed or used it were happy with it.

My concern is this:

Once a model has been uploaded, approved, used by the community, downloaded, printed and boosted, it feels unfair that an automatic system can later re-check it and flag it as invalid, especially when the model clearly exists.

I think a better approach would be:

  • Apply stricter photo checks mainly to new uploads.

  • Be careful with older, already approved models.

  • If an older model is flagged, let a human review it before taking action.

  • Consider community signals like downloads, prints, ratings and boosts before marking a model as problematic.

  • Avoid forcing creators to reprint models just to prove something that was already proven before.

Again, I understand and support the goal of improving model quality on MakerWorld. But in this case, the automatic system seems too strict, especially for older approved models.

I hope MakerWorld can improve this process, because creators should not have to worry that older, legitimate models are suddenly flagged by a robot long after they were accepted.

Thanks for listening.

image
image1875Ă—993 185 KB

6 Likes
2

You aren’t alone. As requirements have tightened up, it’s SOP they apply to old models too and those of us who have had models posted for a while have had to deal with these fire drills.

Even better, the upload process is now more strict and some old features that got changes - like parameters for prime towers - are now incompatible and cause any edits to the model page to fail because changes trigger another look at the 3mf. I had prime towers on a bunch of multicolor prints I had to just delete to get the 3mf files to be accepted after changing model photos after new requirements were implemented.

Changes to the model page should not trigger technical reviews of the 3mf - or, the author needs the option to just leave the 3mf as it was.

Once Bambu accepts a model they need to accept the rules they allowed the model to post under. It really isn’t right to keep forcing authors to revise pages and models multiple times because Bambu didn’t properly plan ahead.

The way I plan to deal with any more fire drills is to just delete the models that require changes and post them elsewhere.

2 Likes
3

While I agree, if this was really a “fire drill”. When considerable notice is given, I have no problem with it.

It is a good change and I think they did do it in the best way possible.

Now if they could have done it without ruining thr 3mf that would have been much better.

2 Likes
5

I was not referring to the sexually explicit model policy.

I was referring to the real image policy. In which there was considerable notice.

2 Likes
7

We must be not reading the same system messages

1 Like
9

Jesus Christ. You want to argue just to argue.

We are both referring to the same policy. I am simply sharing my opinion that when realistic time frames are in place, changing a policy after the fact is not a bad thing. Even if it is a PITA, it is worth it if it benefits the community.

If we are referring to the real image rule…

image
image746Ă—467 53.4 KB

This one does not have a compliance date, but only applied to newly uploaded models.

image
image749Ă—169 7.18 KB

This one had a 90 day compliance date (be it you had to go to the community announcement to see it)

If you think I am calling you a liar, then we must be referring to difference policy changes.

10

Thing is, the model I am referring to has 2 video’s about the model, where it shows the print. The photo of the model IS a real print, and some automated system flagged it.

I then had to make another photo AND a video to proof it’s a real print…

Sorry, but this is above what I can understand.

12

It’s above what a lot of us can understand it seems. The problem is the system as it was allowed various kinds of ways to manipulate the system. Had the rules not been abused there wouldn’t have been a need to change them. Unfortunately pretty much every onerous rule or change has been required because there are people who try to game the points.

We don’t see the big picture or the estimates of losses or other stats regarding the various issues. We just see the rules changes that affect us. And it’s an arms race. The people gaming the system have AI generate models with layer lines, etc. Many wouldn’t even print but have enticing first/feature images. So AI model images got dinged.

And they try to keep the things they look for close to the chest instead of tipping the scammers to how to defeat the system. And there’s an element of chance where much enforcement waits until there is a complaint. It’s tough.

And for the peanut gallery, I’m not knocking Bambu for trying to boot the scammers and I am not knocking them for recent notices that state when enforcement is to begin. That was a very welcome addition to the notices that I and others posted about here to try to get some sanity to the fire drills - which they were back then.

13

You are the only one calling yourself a liar. But after these few exchanges, I might just say you are full â– â– â– â– .

I never disagreed that there were times where swift policy changes were made. Maybe you need to read again. You want to keep on going back to that, but that was not the point that was made.

The real image guideline was not one of those cases. They slowly implemented that over a span of 6 months; from focusing on new models first, to expanding that to older models with ample time given.

15

I am responding here completely independently of MZip and CincinnatiDesigns and am expressing solely my own opinion:

We’ve known about this for a long time, haven’t we? We received a notification through the system, and the information was posted on the blog, on MakerWorld and in the forum, too. It’s been many months.

Rules change, but as harsh as it sounds, it’s your job to check them - at least every few months. So far, Makerworld has always given us enough time when it comes to rule changes: 90 days - three months:

“Existing Models: We are providing a 90-day self-review and optimization period for models that have already been published (deadline: May 5, 2026). During this period, you may gradually review and update your model images. After the adjustment period ends, models that still do not comply with the rules will be handled in accordance with platform guidelines.”

We’re really just talking about you checking your messages every two months and taking note of the announcements. Sure, it’s annoying, but it’s more than manageable.

So what’s the problem? That you didn’t manage to read your messages - or the announcements about rule changes - within this huge time frame, and then it just caught up with you at some point? That’s the real problem, isn’t it?

My tip: Check out or subscribe to this topic:

Also, this blog - you can even set it up so that a copy is sent to you by email:

… or follow the MakerWorld account:

By the way, here was the original announcement: 2026/02/04

Screenshot 2026-07-07 232432
Screenshot 2026-07-07 2324321377Ă—1354 114 KB

in a nutshell: You get paid by MakerWorld - and rightly so, since you’re putting in the hours - but you’re required to check the rules or your inbox at least once every two months. That is your duty.

16

I don’t care if you see this, but everyone else should know that you are spewing misinformation. Which is embarrassing after I posted the screen shots of the system announcements.

You are being too stubborn to recognize that I was and still am talking about the real photo requirement. Is that not what this thread is about? You are trying to equivocate this policy to others that are unrelated.

Sure, I have only been on MW since 2024 instead of 2023. But that doesn’t make a difference when the policies that are being discussed were originally announced in october of 2025.

Shiver me timbers

Probably a good thing since every post you have made recently has been overly argumentative. I don’t need to be conversing with someone who tries to put words in others mouths when they are called out.

You’re wrong and worse, you just keep on making your error worse.

17

Hi…

I really appreciate your very detailed answer, and I am on the same side as you when it comes to keeping an eye on announcements.

However, I think you didn’t read my message properly, or perhaps not even to the end at all.
In fact, I do not have a single model that does not comply with the rules as they have changed. All my models complied, and still comply, with MakerWorld’s rules.

The model in question has a very clear photo (in good resolution) and not one, but even two extensive videos in which the model is continuously used and explained.

The accusation that I do not look at MakerWorld’s announcements is therefore completely inappropriate here, because I do, and none of my models online require any adjustment to continue complying with MakerWorld’s guidelines. I complied, and that is simply still the case at this moment, even according to the new guidelines (which I fully support, by the way).

That’s right, and I fully agree that if you get paid for good content, that content must be good and comply with the rules. In fact, that is the only way we stay paid for our work, and the money doesn’t go to scammers who upload 3D crap.

But if you read my post carefully now, and see that I have had this model online on MakerWorld unchanged for a very long time, with a photo and 2 videos.

If a model gets almost 21.6% boosts versus downloads, then I think you can say that (even though there are only a few downloads) the users look very happy with it. This boost percentage is quite high.

Then it is strange that an automated system simply makes your post invisible and demands that you take new photos. Not for your model page, but for the robot to check again if it is real. I had to take a photo AND a video to get my model visible again.

I have a number of models online that I made for other people, on commission or just out of fun. I no longer have those models myself. If the same thing happens to me there, I cannot take new photos or a video to satisfy the system, even though those models are also provided with 1 (or often even multiple) REAL photos and often videos as well. If these are models that require specific hardware, I cannot even reprint them to fulfill the request, because I do not have the hardware to assemble them.

I really feel that there should be a way to request a manual review in order to challenge this.

18

When I take the time to write a detailed post and someone’s first response is that, there’s only one solution: ignore it. Just write that you disagree with me, instead of sinking to that low level.

You don’t have to agree with me, and that’s fine, but to get personal? If you act that way towards the support team too, that explains a lot. If you argue like that to support, they’ll just brush you off just the same way - at the end of the day, they’re just people, too.

Long story short, it’s MakerWorld’s playground, so they make the rules. Even if you wrote a novel about it, which I like to do too, that wouldn’t change anything. Even if they make the wrong decisions, there’s unfortunately nothing you can do about it - most of the time, not always.

19

Hi RetroSharky…

Uh, forgive me my perhaps somewhat awkward Dutch directness, which I sometimes really don’t realize other people find annoying or offending. I notice that it bothers you, and that really wasn’t my intention. My sincere apologies for that.

However, the point is what I talk about after that first sentence, and please understand me correctly: I think we actually agree 100%, but we are talking past each other.

It was certainly not my intention to annoy you.

1 Like
20

Okay, all right. :+1:

Nevertheless, I don’t think we’re talking past each other. However, I can put it another way: Do you think Banbu will change the rules just because of one post, even if that would be desirable?

That happens only very rarely, and only when a lot of people complain about it - or let’s not even call it “adjusting the rules” - let’s just say adapting the process to how you want it.

That’s the problem: otherwise, everyone would adjust the process to their own advantage. You have to understand that your suggestion, like many other requests, has been raised many times on this forum. The conclusion has usually been the same: Nothing will change about the process. As I said, miracles only happen very rarely.

The desire for real people to look at your contribution and not just rely on AI or filters is something that’s often mentioned, too - and what you’re describing.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m definitely not defending Bambu. They make a lot of mistakes. But you also have to understand that the system can’t be adjusted to suit everyone’s wishes. Otherwise, scammers in particular would take advantage of it. We’ve already had plenty of people cheat and then complain about rule changes.

In short: What you want may be a disadvantage to someone else, and vice versa. This is why changes to the system are such a sensitive topic.

1 Like
21

I agree that MakerWorld ultimately makes the rules and that ignoring the issue may be the only practical option for an individual user. My post, however, concerns a different question: whether applying this check retrospectively has unintended consequences.

I agree with the purpose of Bambu Lab’s rule change, so I think we are actually on the same page about that. MakerWorld should encourage models that have genuinely been printed and should be able to distinguish real photographs from renders.

My concern is not the rule itself, but what may happen when it is applied retrospectively to models that were uploaded and approved months or even years ago. Many creators may no longer have the physical print because it was made a long time ago, given away, or specifically created for somebody else.

If the automatic check incorrectly rejects an existing genuine photograph, those creators may be unable to provide new photographic or video evidence without printing the model again. As a result, valid and useful models could disappear from MakerWorld even though they genuinely exist, comply with the rules and add real value to the platform.

That possible unintended consequence is the point I was trying to highlight.

By the way, I am glad I had the chance to clarify that my previous message was absolutely not intended to be personal or offensive. This is really a problem on my part, my Dutch directness sometimes makes me come across as very blunt to people from other countries, and that is certainly not my intention!

1 Like