So, FDM is only for "low accuracy prototypes"?

[imagine3dps]

I would like to be on the call as well. Today at 12? How do I get on?

Mark

[Steelmans]

Is the original meeting scheduled for 5pm Amsterdam time? (4pm UK time?)

[Filemon]

@Steelmans correct

@imagine3dps I’ll send you an invite

[Steelmans]

I’ll try to make it.

[PepCo_Parker]

My apologies. I found out about this just now. Didn’t have email notifications on anymore after my inbox literally had 50+ emails related to it. Will there be any way to receive a summary of the topics discussed? As well was there any other date possible for the discussion? Thanks again, -Parker Drouillard

[PepCo_Parker]

Thanks for the summary Perry.
if I’m honest, the only wording I’m actually upset about is the misleading statement that 'FDM Hubs can only guarantee XXX Tolerances" When in reality, this is not FDM printers that are guaranteeing those standards, it’s 3D Hubs. IMO the wording should be “3D Hubs can only guarantee XXX Tolerances, as these are the general guidelines enforced by us on hubs. If additional tolerances are needed it is advised that you contact a hub/professional for more information on the subject”

Just something more constructive to be said in case customers are in fact looking for higher tolerances or even better surface finishes.

[Perry_1]

I just posted a summary, and my expectations of possible outcomes at the top of the thread…
Can you get any of those folks who emailed you to come on here?
I have a ton of emails on this issue. I am having difficulty getting those folks to come on here, for various reasons I would rather not say at this time…

@filemon is willing to discuss further. However, so little time was allotted and he is very busy. I encourage you to push for a direct discussion with him, but really feel the real way to get results is still going to be open daylight discussions about the issues and motivations here.
Also, if you reply to the thread directly under the featured thread, your messages will rise above the old ones…

[Perry_1]

Here is my take away from the phone conference today with 3dhubs @filemon and several hubs.

@Filemon took input from a few hub owners, mostly those that were vocal here. This was a scheduled 1 hour meeting, which he was kind enough to actually let run over, even though he had previously said he had a hard stop. I thank him for that.

Obviously, 1 hour was not enough to get into all that needed to be discussed, but it was a start.

The bulk of the discussion was around the FDM guidelines, and how that is worded. There is some likelyhood that wording will get massaged.

Additionally, the dialogue that pushes a customer away from a hub was discussed. This is likely to get changed, I got the impression it was not going over well.

I THINK.

I think that the Prototyping and Prototyping Materials language is still cast in stone. The only way that is going to get changed is if there is enough pushback from FDM hubs. Even though this is “only a test” it was pretty clear to me it is going to be policy.

The only way to change this is if enough hubs speak up. (Most do not know about it, as most do not place orders, and most do not read this forum.)
BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE AWARE PLEASE, if you read this forum, even if you have posted in this thread before, please keep pushing back. Or it will be the way it is. Its not about finding an alternative, or taking your hub down, its about getting the message to 3dhubs that this is a bad, bad mistake for them to be making.
I DO BELIEVE that enough pressure on 3dhubs will get them to see how this is denigrating to the FDM hubs who do good work.

PLEASE POST A REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE, so your message is not lost below. Feel free to reiterate your concerns, so this thread does not get lost on the talk page. I really do not want to have to start another thread!

[PepCo_Parker]

@Filemon Quick question for you, howcome 3D Hubs doesn’t push customers to make inquiries more often? I know I’ve only ever gotten a few, and I myself actually have no clue how to place one. They’re an awesome way for customers to seek more information about any given field of 3D Printing, and what to expect. As well, it (From my experience) Has always increased customer satisfaction having someone walking them through the process insuring they get exactly what they need for their specific project.

This also takes away from the issue of hub’s rankings dropping when customers come to them with unreasonable expectations. Nobody likes letting anybody down, but sometimes customers just don’t know what to expect, or what is required for the process. Inquiries really help this issue and give customers a much superior experience.

I just feel instead of adding more and more ‘guidelines’ and ‘suggestions’ automatically provided by the site, more one on one contact with an actual person from an actual hub would help customers to get exactly what they need. Also avoids all these issues people have about interpretation of wording throughout the site.

The takeaway from this about my suggestion; Educate potential customers about how to use the inquiry process. Show them more that it is a possibility for them to get quick advice from practically any hub on the site! It’s an awesome tool and I hate to see it going so unused.

[Perry_1]

@PepCo_Parker Not to answer for them, I will tell you that 3dhubs in the past found that uploading a model to start the process had much more stickiness than enquiries, so that may explain why they de-empahsized that method of contact to the point it is hard to find.

[Perry_1]

Yes, that is terrible wording. I think they may be willing to change that.

There was discussion about adding some copy around “if additional tolerances are needed…”

------------------

I can’t imagine, after looking at your hub, why you would be fine with your hub being called Prototyping Only and your plastics as being called Prototyping Materials. Make no mistake, all these changes were made en masse as part of a holistic marketing image to denigrate FDM printing, to emphasize the SLS and SLA hubs. I would think you would object to all of it.

[champion3d]

Here’s a feature suggestion (which I will also post over at the user voice page) https://3dhubs.uservoice.com how about you also let hubs access a widget like the “order print” button that let’s us also put “send enquiry” or along those lines. I would put this on my personal website as i do the 3D Print Order widget already, which is front and centre. How about that to encourage more enquiries through 3D Hubs which as hub owners we could then get more conversion over time by welcoming these enquiries and explaining and answering any questions potential customers have, which means they are more likely to then place an order. I often get questions sent direct to my email address but I would happily replace my contact form with a 3D Hubs enquiry button.

[btdevine]

Definitely agree that there needs to be some change in the wording here. If I were a customer who knew nothing about 3D printing, I would most likely not choose this option.

[Steelmans]

@Filemon Any chance we could meet for a few minutes today? Earlier is better than later for me.

[Steelmans]

@Perry_1 Sorry I had to leave the meeting. I honestly thought it would be done in 30 mins. I didn’t realise we would be discussing so much stuff. The bit I most wanted to change was the “Prototyping” wording. I still believe that “General Purpose Plastics” title and “Fast and Affordable parts” would be way more accurate. What was the outcome with this?

[Filemon]

Interesting thoughts @PepCo_Parker @champion3d - it’s true what @Perry_1 points out that inquiries generally don’t ‘convert’ well and we’ve seen the normal order process perform better. Certainly can’t hurt to review the enquiry flow though to see if we can improve performance. will put it up for discussion on our end. thanks again!

[Filemon]

Thanks for joining the call @Perry_1 (and others of course).

Indeed, we will discuss the FDM dialogue message today / tomorrow on our end and will adjust (or even remove). Will keep you posted on that.

Completely open to adjusting the FDM guidelines as well, where a majority of Hubs feel it should. For this I’d need specific suggestions (for example the ‘typical dimensional accuracy’), so feel free to post / mail me about those.

Finally, for the “Prototyping Plastics” designation we have to wait for the variation experiment to end. Also, other variations are lined up for the next few months where, for example, FDM is simply called “FDM”. It’s really too early to tell what’s the best decision here.

Thanks again and let’s stay in touch.

Filemon

[Steelmans]

@Filemon I think you were trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. “Prototyping Plastics” isn’t only insulting, it is incorrect! It doesn’t matter if the data says it works because it is wrong to claim that the actual plastic is just for prototyping. A waste of a test due to incorrect terminology… ABS is not just a prototyping plastic. Polycarbonate isn’t a prototyping plastic…

They are “General Purpose Plastics”!!!

I just Googled “Prototyping Plastics” to get a list but unsurprisingly I couldn’t find one because nobody groups plastics by just one application. Apart from 3D Hubs which Google gave this link… https://www.3dhubs.com/material-group/prototyping-plastic

The prototyping plastics page also stated “rigid plastics”. What about flexible filaments available on FDM?

Also the comment “Prototyping Plastics are printed using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technology” is incorrect. Is this assuming that nobody uses SLS for prototyping? I know that many people use SLS for prototypes including myself in the past. The term “Prototyping Plastics” is just wrong!

I can’t seem to get over this. The information about FDM is full of errors and misconceptions.

[Filemon]

Hi Simon, I scheduled a call today at 17.30h Amsterdam time. that’s my only possibility for today. If preferred, we can reschedule for tomorrow as well

[Steelmans]

Lets stick with that time. Thank you.