WARNING: MakerWorld forcing retrospective changes to model/profiles

MakerWorld
1

I have now been asked to update three different model profiles that didn’t have photos attached to them.

You may think that is the rule, and you are correct.

Except that these models were uploaded when this was NOT a rule.

Before the rule existed

@MakerWorld is requiring designers to retrospectively “fix” problems that were not problems when the models were originally uploaded.

Never mind that each of the models in question had many photos in the main model photos.

Essentially, designers are being asked to abide by rules MakerWorld had yet to set at the time.

I have over 800 models. Some of them were uploaded before the rule existed.

I have donated most of the models I have ever made, usually to schools.

When uploading profiles in the past, the system automatically added a thumbnail from the slicer, which was not only accepted, but it was their default position.

Question:

Do I think each profile should have a photo of the printed model to prove it works

Answer:

Absolutely

It is a good rule and I like it, but we are talking about models that were uploaded before this good model was implemented, and having read it, I agree.

Do I think models that were uploaded before the rule was ever created should be punished for not having the ability to guess what MakerWorld might come up with in the future?

NO

I do not know if it is ignorance or stupidity on the side of the staff. But, I inform them the rule never existed at the time, and the response I get is…

:cricket: :cricket: :cricket:
(crickets people)

They never respond; maybe it is incompetence.

Part of the problem stems from their flat-out refusal to provide any changelog to their communications.

The honest way of telling people that this thing occurred on this date.

They were actually caught out doing this previously when they changed their terms of service to their benefit and to deny customers rights previously bestowed.

The only way this was discovered was using the Wayback Machine, something they now block their site from being seen by, so they can (I assume) lie again in the future.

I am sick of their despicable behaviour.

2

They are probably getting pushback from people not including photos on new uploads saying there are some without photos. Their mindset is “here is an example that doesn’t follow the rules, why should I?”.

It is a board stroke response by MW.

3

Then they should respond with “this model was uploaded before we instigated that rule”.

Honesty is:

  1. the best policy
  2. something to be avoided

I know which they use, and I know which is correct, and they are not the same.

4

I had a bunch of models and print profiles I uploaded very shortly after Makerworld went online when frankly it wasn’t completely clear what the difference was between a model and a print profile. Just a few months ago I got notified that one of the few print profiles I had uploaded on someone else’s model had been taken down and all points that profile had ever earned were deducted. This actually resulted in a negative 70 point balance for me since I had recently redeemed some points. I had fixed all the notifications on my own models because the notification linked to them directly so it was clear how to fix the problem, but the notification for this profile linked to the model which didn’t display my profile anymore so I didn’t know how to fix it. I tried using my appeal to ask for help but they simply rejected it without explaining what I needed to do. I tried opening a support case but they refused to help resolve the situation and would not restore the points and said nothing could be done since my one allowed appeal was rejected and it’s permanent.

I can actually see taking down something that doesn’t fit the current rules, but I don’t think it’s fair to retroactively deduct a year and a half worth of points earned on something that fit the rules as of when it was uploaded.

In response to this I have removed all my original content from Makerworld since they can’t be trusted not to pull the rug out from under you.

5

And they have been requiring that for almost 2 years now. Not sure why you bring this up now?

Additionally, we now require Print Profile creators to include actual print images alongside their Print Profiles. As of today, we’re offering a grace period of 10 days for Print Profile creators to update their existing creations. During this period, creators only need to add actual print images to the ‘Print Profile Pictures’ section.

This was 2023-10-23 18:03, mere months after the platform launched. So you had 2 years time to update those models already.

You seem to be getting some special treatment because most don’t get asked, they get it taken down immediately.

so did thingiverse, requiring you to select a model license which you didn’t need before. Thingiverse updated the submission guidelines requiring thumbnails and photos or risk being hidden in search.

Printables requiring you to specify what changes you made to the remix also needing to add metadata like descriptions or licenses, also something that wasn’t a rule before.

Just like any law or TOS of any website ever.

And what’s your plan now? Abandon Makerworld to send a signal? Protest by taking down your models, switching platform because you don’t want to support this behavior or keep everything as is and continue to profit from it?

6

So many incorrect and dubiously linked thoughts unrelated to my points.

I will focus on one only.

This was NOT a requirement anywhere near as long as you suggest.

It was closer to the middle of 2024.

I didn’t start uploading until January 2024, and it was only a recommendation at that point. Instead, they used and recommended slicer thumbnails that they automatically provided and placed as the main profile image.

Again, it was not until the middle of 2024 that the suggestion changed to a requirement.

Facts are important.

You have clearly not read the horrific treatment I am constantly having to deal with from BL. Weird as it is plastered all over this forum.

I am confused why you would be suggesting things that are so different from what happened when, in the past, I have found your responses and thoughts to be on the ball.

7

image
image1314×643 64.6 KB

8

And you clearly seem to not have read what i responded to.

I am responding to your current topic and how you get special treatment by being asked to please update while others don’t have that luxury, they get hit with a takedown immediately.

Then i’ll ask again

9

That was still marked up in their print profile guide as a recommendation until the second half of last year.

I didn’t start uploading until January 2024, where no such requirements were in place and the wording to say it was didn’t appear until the second half of 2024.

I wasn’t even a user when that ‘notice’ was sent, I didn’t get my first printer until December 2023.

Having just searched the forum for the topic, it appears no one else had either until the September update to the guidelines. There was a lot of discussion at that point as to why the guidelines were being enforced as guidelines were not rules.

They may have sent a message out, but to all those who came after it and until September 2024, they had made no declaration anywhere users could see it, nothing on the model upload, nothing on the profile upload.

The photo requirement for the model didn’t start until April 2024, and as I say, the only mention was September 2024 for the profile photo. They still took a bit of time with the wording on the profile page over the next few weeks.

So, it seems, as usual, they failed to communication to people for 11 months as they would not have seen that notice and yet, the people they never shared this information with in any shape or fashion are being held to something they had no idea about.

A despicable practice and yet another example of just how poorly Bambu Lab communicate.

As I mentioned at the start of this topic, their refusal to provide any change log makes their position all the more problematic, but again, they appear to have ONLY shared this requirement in a system note sent before many even signed up and NEVER provided the information anywhere else useful, like the so called “Recommendations” (which clearly states they are not rules), the profile page or anywhere else they would be seen. They are also not posted on the forum.

My complaint is that they do not communicate these things; you have proven my point.

My only point I ever make is that I want them to improve. It is in all my posts when they screw up.

I like the promise, but they fail to deliver. I do not wish them to fail, I would like them to become what we hope they could be and what they pretend they are.

Until they fix their major communication problems that permeate their entire company, they are deceiving themselves and us. We should demand better, and they should be grateful for constructive criticism.

10

It was within a couple of weeks of my post here about the print plates being removed from the print profiles that the caption stating a print profile was required was added.

September 2024.

Until then, it was not included anywhere else any user could look up or see when it was contextually required.

11

If it’s true that some are „asked” to update profiles and others get penalised straight away it really sucks.
2 tier „community” of makers…

12

I have experienced both.

13

Three out of over 800 models doesn’t seem so horrific. In all honesty, I’ve not been on MW for nearly as long as the OP, but as I look at models I always just assumed that if they had no photos of the final printed model it meant they either had never printed it, or it wasn’t going to work properly and thus I avoid them like the plague. I never knew that historically, photos weren’t a requirement.

I understand the frustration expressed by the OP in that it’s a change in policy, but changes in policy seem to be the norm on Internet sites and I’ve seldom seen any that grandfather T’s and C’s from earlier content. If the three models that have been flagged are considered valuable to the OP, and if it were me, I’d likely just re-print and photograph them such that they’d be re-added. I do understand the frustration, and yes, it might have been handled better if older content was automatically labelled by the system as being legacy if not in compliance with the most recent requirements.

14

For reference, it has been three recently.

I didn’t include the day I woke up and 200+ models had been removed from my account because as I had a shared that before. It was some overzealous staff member who decided they were non-compliant and it took a few days for them to be restored.

No notice, nothing, just a devastated catalogue, tens of thousands of points gone and a dumb message from a more containing unrelated boiler plate.

And, no, no pre-warning.

The three I mentioned here were the recent ones, there have been more than this and not including the single batch I just mentioned.

15

There’s a huge difference between not grandfathering and removing the content that doesn’t meet the new terms and doing that but also docking all points that were ever earned by that model as if it never complied with the terms in the first place. Now imagine if docking those points actually left you with negative points so that you would have to add creative content just to dig yourself out of the hole they created - that’s what happened to me. I have removed all my content from Makerworld as a result and will do nothing else that earns points.

16

Fair solution from Makerworld to write to you. MakerWorld could also have taken the elegant approach and no longer displayed any models without photos in the search and suggestions, unless you follow a direct link, and that’s it.

MakerWorld, please consider this an official suggestion.

17

You are lucky. They just took my design down stating I had no print photos with it. I had them but I guess they didnt see them. Just took it down and took back the points from downloads.

18

You can appeal.

If successful, they will restore the points.

Create a ticket and provide a link to the model in question.

Explain how they were wrong and that you expect the profiles enabled and the points restored.

19

They should definitely grandfather models in

20

“If successful” is the key here.
Mar/2025 they took back 1700 points for a convoluted reason that required a deep dive into the mechanics of 8 files that turned out were lost on my hard drives, some where, some how. I wish I had saved the email on all of the requirements they wanted in order to justify ownership. Alot of it was so technical that it was basically “Greek” to me - ray’s, vortexes, what programs(s), raw files, notes, time stamps, pictures, whatever. Who the H has or keeps pictures (screenshots) of projects as you develop an idea/model?

I gave them all I could muster, raw files, pictures and so forth and the algorithm bounced it out. I was unable to communicate with them at all with any questions (crickets) and all under a deadline. To this day I still do not understand what the problem was. I gave all the supporting stl, artwork - everything I could find/had.
Coincidently, the uploads were the best performing and generated 490 points about every 35 days or so. Resulted in a negative1800 points. You have one appeal and zero recourse if the algorithm says “nope.”

I, too, had to go thru and make sure each model had a real picture - not to your extent but still a pain in the a$$. The fact that they go back in time, apply new rules/guidelines and then claim how fair they are, just is aggravating.

I do not have the ability, either, to guess what MakerWorld might come up with in the future.

Edit to say, I ONCE got back 15 points and a slap on my back…
Dear user, Your appeal has been accepted and your profile has been reinstated. The points deducted for this model have been restored, and please check the points history. According to our community guidelines and MakerWorld Print Profile Upload Guidelines, as well as the model upload interface, we strongly require users to include physical images when uploading print profiles. Profiles that do not include physical images will be removed. Since your models contain actual printed images, after a thorough evaluation, we have decided to restore the profile files for you and return the corresponding points. We recommend that you upload the actual images to these profile files or make them private within 24 hours, if you fail to do so, the files might be taken down again. We would like to remind you that this is a special one-time opportunity. We also want to remind you to carefully read our MakerWorld Print Profile Upload Guidelines to ensure that your account’s print profiles do not violate any rules. For any future violations, we will not provide another opportunity for restoration, as this would be unfair to users who comply with the rules and to our operations team. We hope you can understand this point. Thank you for your support and attention.