Reviews of 3 stars removed - what are reviews worth

[Psychogene]

I have 3 printers and am printing constantly, I take reviewing serious as it is a nice gesture to other makers, so I usually include pictures and other stuff and I boost the really nice ones, but the list is very long (50+ models each week) so sometimes i’m a bit faster and less detailed.

For my boomerang prints (I tried many) I found that one didn’t fly too well (not at all) compared to other boomerangs I own, my review was 3 starts “it didn’t fly as well as other boomerangs i own”. (granted, this is a too basic review, and maybe. there is some user error, even though I followed the guide)

He replies: what filament did you use, i can help you tune it. (very nice, so I start replying)

I typed a whole story, was going to make a video and get back to him and update the rating if it was indeed my fault. And then I see that I’ve been reported.

So I thought I’ll write a message:

I know that high ratings are important and people are really trying to get 4.8-5.0 star reviews. But if anything with criticism is taken down like this, then the whole rating system doesn’t make sense. There should be an option to say: request more details and unless you expand on it, it will be removed, but I can’t help to feel a bit annoyed by it.

If it’s also easy for people to get their criticism taken down, how meaningful is the actual review system. To be honest, I am not against taking down really useless reviews (like the amazon ones where the delivery guy didn’t come, that has nothing to do with the product).

TLDR: Maybe I’m a crybaby and I should’ve moved on, but I wonder if this happens often to others as well?

It for sure has tainted my view a bit, and will not be joining that creator his membership plan when i get to my production stage.

[RetroSharky]

@Psychogene

For my boomerang prints (I tried many) I found that one didn’t fly too well (not at all) compared to other boomerangs I own, my review was 3 starts “it didn’t fly as well as other boomerangs i own”.

Without a second thought, I report all reviews of my models that have 1–3 stars and no reasonable description. Only those with a description of the fault remain. Anyone leaving a negative review must adhere to the MakerWorld rules and provide detailed information, preferably including a photo.

If that sentence was the only thing you posted, then it was removed for good reason - because it violated the rules. If you wrote more but just forgot to mention it, you should add that information and edit your forum post.

@Psychogene

TLDR: Maybe I’m a crybaby and I should’ve moved on, but I wonder if this happens often to others as well?

Not a crybaby, but the fact remains that you broke a rule. It’s essential to write something in a review that helps the creator fix the problem, not just to say that someone else’s print is better.

---

Suggestions for Low Ratings (1–3 Stars)

If your printing experience did not meet expectations and you rate it 1–3 stars, consider including information such as:

1. A clear and detailed description of the issues encountered
   (e.g., structural failure, insufficient support, parts do not fit together smoothly, etc.)

2. The print settings or materials you used

3. Photos of the print results to make the problem more visible and allow the creator or other users to assist you

MakerWorld Rating Guidelines

[GeorgeTDS]

@Psychogene

“it didn’t fly as well as other boomerangs i own”

I was under the impression that the print ratings were for how the object prints, not for whether or not you can use it after the fact.

I would love it if Bambu had more than one rating system so that we can rate both the objective quality of the print and the more subjective opinion of the object created. Being able to print an object successfully does not mean it was worth the time and effort to print, nor does liking the aesthetics or subject of the print mean that it will indeed come out as expect. Neither on their own paint the whole picture, but together they can illustrate the whole story.

[RetroSharky]

@GeorgeTDS

I was under the impression that the print ratings were for how the object prints, not for whether or not you can use it after the fact.

In theory, you could also leave a comment without a rating of a 3D model - with a personal opinion. Other users can read that, too.

---

Now, in general terms, not regarding GeorgeTDS comment:

If there’s a printing error, another option is to contact the creator first. That’s what I did whenever a 3D model had a defect. Most designers were very happy about it. Before I leave a bad review - which I do extremely rarely - I write to the creator first. An option that, unfortunately, too few people take advantage of.

We also have to keep in mind that if a designer receives too many negative ratings, they won’t earn any points and therefore won’t get paid, so negative ratings need to be justified.

[GeorgeTDS]

@RetroSharky

In theory, you could also leave a comment without a rating of a 3D model - with a personal opinion. Other users can read that, too.

I was thinking about that, but in my opinion it isn’t quite enough to have two separate reviews. Each on their own only present half of the picture, and if they are separated nothing ties the back together.

@RetroSharky

If there’s a printing error, another option is to contact the creator first.

That isn’t a bad idea. Especially as a less than five star review could stay posted even after the error was corrected.
It could help if the prints had version numbers applied by MakerWorld, perhaps. That way a poor review for version one might not fully reflect the updated version two or three.

I actually printed a “fidget toy” yesterday because I was curious how it worked and wanted to feel and see the parts in action. It printed really well but I don’t think the mechanics of it quite work. I haven’t reviewed it yet because of this. Contacting the creator might give me help, but I feel bad trying to get someone to address me personally over something that is more or less free. A public comment would at least allow the creator to answer everyone at once (assuming anyone reads my comment and the reply).

Yeah, okay now that I think about it, rating is less straight forward than I was trying to present.

[RetroSharky]

For context, it might be worth mentioning that the creator of this thread has posted just now in another thread that this is ‘cancel culture’ . It seems like he doesn’t really take the rules of MakerWorld seriously.

Ratings don't mean anything anymore

Do you report only when they are 3 starts or lower, or also the 5 stars with no text and no picture . Speaking for myself, I mostly give 5 starts, include a picture in 70% of the cases, and write some text as well, sometimes a few paragraphs, sometimes a line, depending on what it is. So what you are saying is that if I just don’t review your model, I’d be better off, otherwise I might be blocked, and I can’t see your models anymore? I’ve had this with another review that g…

[Psychogene]

Yeah i broke the rules without realizing. My bad..

I was in a rush and going through the list of things to rate, no excuse though.

I did end up writing more and including documented material of everything but i was already blocked lol

[Psychogene]

As I said, honest mistake. I am new here, as in 2-3 months and i was not aware of the official rules. No need to keep going

[RetroSharky]

@Psychogene

I was in a rush and going through the list of things to rate, no excuse though.

It happens - tomorrow it’ll be forgotten anyway.

Just remember that behind every 3D model (except for AI junk) there’s often a designer - in other words, a human being. I’m sure they were just as annoyed.

[Psychogene]

If someone has a very high in-demand model, having all these questions will be hard to answer for them, but it’s always worth a try.

As in having 2 types of reviews: How does it print, and How does it function?
Conceptually it might sound nice, but many end users might feel like it is yet another thing to fill in and skip it or put in in the wrong place (I am a software architect, I know how people using forms are ).

Maybe in the template of the input they could say: mention something about print and function

Or support 2 or more star ratings: print rating (grouped per material type on homepage), functionality rating, aesthetics rating.

But it always gets complicated quickly, and based on what will designers get points then.

[Bullocks]

The following is not “right” but it is “how it is”

You’re messing with their money when you do that, this is a metric
Both the designer and bambu are incentivized to have a library full of 5 star prints

People act in strange ways when you mess with their money. Even if the criticism was valid Perhaps, especially if the criticism was valid

[Kadler]

It’s simple, ratings are for the print profiles, not the model. Your rating was based on the model, not the print profile.
If there were no issues with the print quality that were caused directly by a bad setting in the profile, then the rating should never be anything less than 5. That’s just how it is and anyone who doesn’t like giving 5 because “nothing is ever perfect” or any other reasoning, then just don’t rate. ← Not saying that’s your reasoning, just putting it out there because there’s a lot of people like that.

[krellboy]

I didn’t realize this was the situation, so basically on makerworld the review score is useless?

There is a US based filament manufacturer who does something similar, basically he deletes all of the negative reviews because “they did something wrong”, so naturally every item has almost perfect reviews.

[CincinnatiDesigns]

@krellboy

US based filament manufacturer who does something similar,

You mean the “most reliable filament on earth”?

[krellboy]

No, a different one. I’m not mentioning the name but I did remove them from my list of US filament manufacturers (as well as the one you mentioned, which I did explicitly name when I removed them).

[RetroSharky]

@krellboy

I didn’t realize this was the situation, so basically on makerworld the review score is useless?

It’s always been that way, and it’s never been any different.

The problem is simply that Bambu ties payment to ratings. It’s actually a good idea in theory. However, it’s a bad idea if others use it to actively harm people. If payment weren’t tied to it, it wouldn’t matter what people rate.

Unless you’re lucky enough to have so many positive reviews that it just doesn’t matter. However, small creators in particular are suffering from this.

The problem lies in the whole broken payment system based on points. If you give bad reviews, the worst-case scenario is this: The creator doesn’t get the money they’re entitled to, and Bambu is happy that they don’t have to pay.

Edit: The whole system is so broken that point farmers - who, by the way, Bambu still hasn’t banned - are currently taking full advantage of it and giving each other hundreds of positive ratings.

[Psychogene]

Yeah I never realized ratings were for the print profile only as almost everything prints correctly on nowadays.

Aside from aesthetics (because if you don’t like it, don’t print it) you print something for its function. For example:

• an AMS mount and it doesn’t fit the AMS at all but printed perfectly, how do you rate it?
• berry washer that doesn’t actually wash berries and doesn’t produce the vortex it describes, but prints perfectly, how do you rate it?

That’s why I was confused in the first place and I felt like taking my review down was kind of gaming the system, but I made the mistake of being to concise and unclear, so it was rightfully taken down.

And as last, the incentive of money affects this system a lot. I get that it helps these platforms grown in numbers of files, and ratings have a different effect because you actually hurt the designer (in contrast to true open-source code). This also made me judge reviews differently, instead of looking at from 1-5, I scale the ratings from 4 - 5, where 4.6 is maybe the lowest viable score?

I think the income of a model designers make is quite large, larger than you expect. I printed an in-house boomerang, that model-designer said in a comment that he mad 1300 of his boosts and donations for that single model. If you look at it that way, that’s quite huge and I get people start “optimizing” their reviews.

[CincinnatiDesigns]

Some hard questions there.

The funny thing with rating profiles is that most settings are solely based on the presets that are already in studio, and most of the time they are not that bad.

Especially for functional parts, the print quality is rarely the issue since it doesn’t matter as much as strength or dimensional accuracy.

@Psychogene

• an AMS mount and it doesn’t fit the AMS at all but printed perfectly, how do you rate it?
• berry washer that doesn’t actually wash berries and doesn’t produce the vortex it describes, but prints perfectly, how do you rate it?

I will not leave a rating.

I will leave a long and detailed comment with pictures on how it doesnt work.

And if there is actually an issue with the print profile, rate it more harsh than I normally would.

@Psychogene

And as last, the incentive of money affects this system a lot

It really is stupid, but it is how it is.

If I remember correctly, you have to have a print profile drop below 3 stars to stop getting points from it. With something that is getting multiple reviews, that is actually hard to do unless the model/profile is really that bad. One grumpy person will not considerably throw off any metric.

Ex: This is the worst review I have ever left.

Many people agreed with it and expressed the same issue in other reviews…

… The profile still has 4.7 stars.

Judging a model by its rating is hard because it is so dependent on how many prints it gets.

Side note: I personally believe that high tiered users are treated differently by MW. Even valid reviews get removed despite evidence and explanation.

[Psychogene]

Great example of a good critical review. That is also what I will do from now on.

One thing that came to mind: It does feel kinda wrong though that that unprintable model or a non-functional ams holder(made up example) can stay up for so long with a good rating. Aside from small dimensional mismatches because someone uses ABS instead of the PETG profile and didnt account for shrinkage, it does seem wasteful in filament, time, and environmental waste. That should also not be fully ignored, just not to harm the designer that put up something bad (or even ai generated slop).

But yeah, no need to trash the rating of a designer that put hard work in, tried to help people out. First mode should be collaboration instead, and communicating first as you and others said is indeed a good way.

Edit: i just opened the guidelines and the first paragraph says this:

Ratings reflect your assessment of a profile’s quality and serve as an important reference for other users when evaluating its printing performance and functionality.

So they do say it is about the profile quality but then go on saying people can use it to ■■■■■ functionality?

[RetroSharky]

Here’s an example from me. By the way, that’s the only 1-star review I’ve ever written, and only because the actual 3D model was defective and the creator initially didn’t respond to comments and later claimed it was my printer’s fault. Yet it was 100% verifiable that the upload was defective. By the way, he couldn’t get the review deleted.

The comment goes much further than the image: It includes a description of the problem as well as a possible solution:

Unfortunately, the designer completely shut down and didn’t even want the fixed file that I had made available to him. He doesn’t have to, by any means, but in this case, a negative rating was actually completely justified - especially when the upload is defective and the creator tells everyone, “It’s your printer’s fault.”

Why I’m posting this: MakerWorld doesn’t delete reviews like this. People just need to post a photo and describe the problem.