Questions and Contradictions: Navigating the Exclusive Program

[LightBulb]

Hello fellow creators,

When the MakerWorld program was first announced in October, I was among the first to raise a critical issue: when a model is removed from the program, you lose all your points, not just the exclusive ones. This revelation surprised many at the time. Unfortunately, I experienced this firsthand when my filament clip was removed for not meeting originality criteria. I also noticed many other models that violated similar rules were still in the program, but with the program being new, I assumed staff moderation would improve over time.

Fast Forward to January: The Rules and Their Contradictions

At the end of December, I released a new clip (Filament Clip by LightBulb - MakerWorld). In January, I revisited the program rules to see where things stood. At first glance, the rules are clear: filament clips are NOT allowed.

However, a search reveals 338 filament clip models marked as “exclusive.”

Adding to the confusion, further down in the guidelines, filament clips are allowed if they are original, but only one version per design is permitted:

This contradiction puzzled me because my clip was removed in October under the argument that it was a version of another one of my designs. To clarify the eligibility of my clip, I contacted MakerWorld support.

MakerWorld’s Response

Here’s the reply I received:

“Hi LightBulb, we’ve seen that you’ve clearly put much time into designing this clip, and like all other clips that are still in the program, we hope it’s an original model designed by yourself, not remixes of existing filament clip models.”

This response was frustrating. It implies that the originality of models currently in the program is unquestioned while casting doubt on mine. Let’s examine the top 10 filament clips for originality.

Example: Top 10 Filament Clips

Take number 4 (Universal Filament Clip by Hanti_3d - MakerWorld). It seems quite similar to these two models:

• Filament Clip by 3DP | Download free STL model | Printables.com
• Easy Filament Clip 1.75mm by brauky - Thingiverse

I won’t overstate the point with more examples, but anyone experienced in this hobby can easily identify the “originality” of some clips in the top 10. This is especially troubling because we’re discussing the TOP 10 models by relevance, not obscure or recent uploads.

Unequal Application of Rules

When I presented these observations to MakerWorld, they treated them as formal reports rather than examples of unclear or unevenly applied rules. They added:

“The reason why we mentioned this is because we don’t want your model to risk being reported by other users since it’s quite similar to your previous designs, as we do have requirements for originality.”

Yet, examining the top 10 models reveals further inconsistency. Two models in the top 10 belong to a creator with more clip versions than I have models in total, many of which are strikingly similar and all exclusive:

Again, I emphasized to MakerWorld that I wasn’t reporting anyone but highlighting systemic issues.

Side note: To the creators mentioned here, I see you as participants in a flawed system, not individuals to be blamed or punished.

Conclusion: Clarity and Enforcement are Key

So, are filament clips allowed or not? I don’t know, and neither does MakerWorld. This lack of clarity leaves participants like me with more questions now than when the program started in October.

For Participants

If your goal isn’t to turn points into income, don’t join the program. If you’ve already joined, wait out the 90-day period and leave until the program reaches a higher level of maturity.

For MakerWorld

1. Prioritize Clarity: Clearly communicate what participants can expect and what is expected of them. Simply stating submissions must be “original” is insufficient, it leaves too much room for interpretation.
2. Focus on Enforcement: The current system relies on community policing, allowing inconsistent enforcement and rule violations to go unchecked. This results in situations where hundreds of similar models flood the program, setting a misleading precedent.

Final Thoughts

The program has incredible potential, offering creators a pathway to transform their talents into sustainable careers. Yet, without clear guidelines and consistent rule enforcement, participation feels like walking a tightrope. My hope is that these issues will be resolved so the program can flourish. However, I fear this progress may come at the expense of countless dedicated creators who, without knowing the risks, could lose their hard-earned points in the process.

[MalcTheOracle]

They take enforcement of reports at the moment p, I’m not sure if the bother to proactively search for models.

Let’s be honest, a search on the dozen or so banned models types (added after launch I might add) would take long.

A search of models by height would take long.

Right now, it seems users are reporting models.

On day one (before they said no coasters) I added my coasters, a few days later they said no coasters.

No amnesty for those they just shadow banned.

A short while later they removed all my coasters from the exclusive program and stole 125% with bait and switch rules.

A week ago, they took another few out which they apparently hadn’t noticed before, taking 125% again, given the time frame, there were far more points taken on fewer models as they waited so long to remove them. They could have gone through my whole account when they first did it, but, being lazy then meant I get penalised more later on.

I suspect they were being honest (I don’t always trust their statements) when they said “a result reports”.

I have over 660 models with no easy way to see which have been removed or which are still in. They provided no easy management of this.

The amnesty logic should be applied when THEY change the policy.

The idea that “someone else designed x first so that is the only one allowed” is nuts.

The whole program from the launch has been a mess and the only ones penalised for their failures to plan things are the innocent designers. By stealing 125% of the points each time they change the rules they are repeatedly shows their incompetence and treating the innocent victims of their ineptitude as guilty of not knowing what they didn’t know “their future categories being banned”.

[LightBulb]

I remember well your situation, @MalcTheOracle, and our discussions, along with many others, back in October. Unfortunately, it seems that little has changed since then. You’re absolutely right about your observation – it appears that there is no proactive policing being done by MakerWorld, with models only being removed after they are reported. This is something I also encountered in my conversations with MakerWorld, and I quote:

“If we start receiving user reports about the originality of this design once you’ve joined […]”

“[…] we don’t want your model to risk being reported by other users”

“[…] risk of your model being reported once you’ve joined.”

From my perspective, it feels like they are avoiding taking responsibility for actively managing this process, and instead, they are leaving it up to users to report issues. I had hoped for a clearer approach, but it seems that MakerWorld has been suggesting that whether a model gets removed is simply if it gets reported or not.

It’s understandably frustrating, especially with the frequent rule changes and the penalties that come with them. It’s clear that the system is still evolving, and unfortunately, it’s often the innocent designers who face the consequences of these inconsistencies.

[Uhl]

I must say, this is one of the best posts I’ve ever come across on this forum. Your communication is exceptionally clear, and the tone is absolutely perfect. I mostly agree with your perspective.

I would not go as far as to quit the program entirely. There are enough models that are clearly original (enough) and are not in danger of being removed, even if the lines are sometimes blurry and the enforcement of the guidelines lacks consistency.

[LightBulb]

I appreciate the feedback and I am glad I was able to explain the issue clearly. Regarding the second part, you might be right. My personal negative experience with the program may have led me to a more extreme recommendation. I do agree that, in some cases, if you’re confident your model fully meets the criteria (with no doubts about it) and stay up-to-date with any guideline changes, you can participate in the program without issues.

You may have noticed that I avoided using the term “original.” I understood your point, but I think terms like “originality” can be quite subjective, especially without a clear definition of what qualifies as an original model. This lack of clarity only adds to the uncertainty around the program and leads to decisions that depend too much on the evaluator’s interpretation, creating a level of unpredictability.