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…
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!
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.
@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.
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
This seems to fit along the lines of 3D Hubs interest in moving toward commercial printers and away from small shops. No one should really be surprised. The fact that they made this move to push most of the “little guys” aside without a word, and now are reluctant to change that stance is just further evidence of what is fairly common industry knowledge. It has even been reported by 3D Printing media sources.
It kind of seems like they are trying to drive us away on purpose. The new quality guidelines we just agreed to, then turn around and imply our product is inferior? What the…?
Then this whole business of using repeat customers as a way to determine if we show up in results?
The outcome of the meeting did nothing to change my mind that they are NOT listening to our issues on this. @filemon continues to cling to his “testing” meme and I did not feel he was listening to our concerns, or the concerns of most of the hubs that I am discussing this with whose voice I was trying to put forth.
I still feel 3dhubs is really is not listening to how we feel about “protoyping” and “prototyping materials”, or is unwilling to see why we feel it is so bad.
As I said in my first post the day this thread started, this change was done specifically to move customers to higher margin means of printing and has little to do with anything else. @filemon continued to use his canned phrase “No fewer FDM orders”. He posted that exact phrase here in this thread, and repeated it several times during the call, with that exact wording. This wording is designed to make us feel better. We shouldn’t. I don’t trust the “test” or the wording of “No fewer FDM orders.”
I personally think misleading the market will cost customers, and that 3dhubs is attempting to harvest the growth of the market by pushing customers away from FDM. “No fewer FDM orders” is a pretty bad goal, and easy to hit. What he will not say is “Hey, this is working, because 3dhubs is getting customers to move to higher $ prints from FDM” when that is the real goal, or they would not have made this change, and would have responded to our feedback on it, and would have shown some loyalty to us.
Again, they are not listening, or hubs are not protesting enough. (Pointing out again that most of the hubs are not going to see most of this, so the voice of those that hang out on talk should be considered a relevant sampling…)
If people don’t really, really protest, I think it is here to stay. This will drive competitors, split the market, etc.
There are a lot of other things they won’t say out loud, or in public.
Perry I don’t mean to be rude, but being bluntly honest I think you’re beating a dead horse here. You’ve starting coming across somewhat hostile and I honestly don’t think it’s doing anything to strengthen your point other than obfuscating this chat to the point that it’s hard to have actual discussions on what can be done about the matter. If I had any advice it would be to just step back and take a breath for a second. I understand you are frustrated, but repeating the same thing over and over is in reality accomplishing nothing. That being said this extends out to everyone on these forums, they’re meant for collaboration. I just think you should lay back on your comments towards @filemon and @3DHubs and give them some time to react. It’s not something that can be impulsively done, they have to consider all the options, if it’s worth their time, then troubleshoot solutions, fease them out, get them approved, and then implement.
Perry I don’t mean to be rude, but being bluntly honest I think you’re beating a dead horse here. You’ve starting coming across somewhat hostile and I honestly don’t think it’s doing anything to strengthen your point other than obfuscating this chat to the point that it’s hard to have actual discussions on what can be done about the matter. If I had any advice it would be to just step back and take a breath for a second. I understand you are frustrated, but repeating the same thing over and over is in reality accomplishing nothing. That being said this extends out to everyone on these forums, they’re meant for collaboration. I just think you should lay back on your comments towards @filemon and @3DHubs and give them some time to react. It’s not something that can be impulsively done, they have to consider all the options, if it’s worth their time, then troubleshoot solutions, fease them out, get them approved, and then implement.
@PepCo_Parker Thank you for not being rude and being bluntly honest, while offering your opinion. I am doing the same, and have the right to do so.
I would like to point out I was answering a specific question that was directed specifically to me. I was not beating a dead horse, but was answering a specific request for an opinion.
@filemon is a big boy. He can take it, so can I. He even said to continue the discussion here on the phone call, if you recall.
As for repeating myself, that is a legitimate form of protest on a forum when responses are sparse. Collaboration requires response.
I have no intention of stepping back. Do you recommend the same for @Steelmans whose question I was answering? And other hubs that show lost business in this thread? Do you suggest they step back for several months?
You state going back to the other wording is something that can not be impulsively done. I must disagree, they can change back from the at any time, otherwise it would be a pretty poor test.
Silence will get us nowhere. Sorry. The last time this type of change was made, it floated into thread history pretty rapidly, and was simply ignored. I am just trying to keep this from happening again.
I have been exceedingly civil, but sometimes facts and opinions can be difficult to read, particularly when you are questioning someones motives, as I have done here. My goal is still honorable, to protect our market, and to prevent 3dhubs from making what I consider to be a very big mistake. My motivations are clean.
I’m not saying to step back*and do nothing*, but I do know if this was a group of people collaborating, one person constantly bringing up the same points without taking a break quickly tires and frustrates others. In this situation, the issue ends up being people have to scroll for several minutes to sift through all the repetition to get to the progress. You are right that you were answering a specific question, but the answer was essentially just a repeat of your other post and summaries. This is a very active forum, and it’s great to see collaboration, but I do believe there comes a point where it is in excess and is not benefiting the cause in a positive manor. That being said, I am no god, I am not 100% right 100% of the time, and this is just my opinion. At the same time, I know it is now almost impossible for me to follow this thread and get any meaningful information from it, as well, my email is filled with notifications that I have to sift through as I didn’t unsubscribe from the forum in time.
I would add that ABS as prototyping plastic is silly, many final objects are ABS, including the mouse I am using, I would think.
Also, it is wrong and confusing because the other cards have not changed. So prototyping as a result shows in several of the other cards. Its just bad wording. I agree, a test to see if no fewer FDM orders is what is being measured, they are in fact testing something that is just wrong. If the data shows FDM orders went up, it would no less wrong.
“I can’t seem to get over this” Don’t get over it. Stay vocal.
I have much respect for you, your input, and your continued help with others here in “Talk” who need help from experienced hubs. You are great!
And you and I, in general, do not disagree on the many of the issues here, so disagreeing on the effectiveness of repeating points, particularly in response to new posts is not so bad. I do have a tinge of protest in my motivations, as well.
Also, I think you were off the thread for awhile, if I recall, so reading it from top to bottom, instead of how it occurred naturally over two weeks, it certainly reads much worse! Plus, if we do not respond, the thread will disappear, something we should not be willing to let happen, at the cost of it being unwieldy.
After this is all over, I hope you resubscribe. The forum really does need folks like you.
Yeah for sure! Thanks BTW Perry. You’re right about me being away for a few days. I turned off my notifications for it and then didn’t get back into the conversation until a few days later. That definitely made it much harder to follow the thread!
Hi all, the ‘material disclaimer’ on FDM has been removed for the reasons discussed in this thread. To give full disclosure, we might still add such material disclaimers in the future but we’ll do that on another note and across all materials when we do, not just FDM. More updates later.
I have a really random question for you Filemon, at first I thought the 20XX printer guide badges just get removed each year but after seeing everyone else’s I realized this wasn’t the case. I had the 2016 printer guide badge (as I contributed to it) until the newer one came out for 2017. After that I had the 2017 one but the 2016 disappeared… is there any reason why or information about how I can get it back? Thanks in advance
I’m usually not a grammar nitpicker (at least not to other people!), but the change you made on the Accept or Decline page (see the attached jpeg) - shouldn’t it read “or the customer and I have agreed…” rather than “or me and the customer have agreed…”
@filemon, will we ever get all our materials back? Many of us (prototyping) FDM printers went through the trouble to enter in different exotic filaments, i.e. flexible, woodfill, metalfill, etc. and now customers cannot see those unless the customer already knows in advance to specifically search for them.
At the very least, can those be put back in the drop-down list AFTER a customer chooses a hub so they at least get some clue that those are options?
They are not listed anywhere else. With all the debate about FDM vs. SLA/SLS etc., all those other materials have been quietly removed.
If that’s the case this is very upsetting… I just spent almost 1000$ on getting new exotic filaments, testing them and getting them working with my fdm systems. This would explain my sudden decline with exotic material orders. This goes back to my question about the materials I had asked before, specifically at the time armadillo by ninkatek, but if this is an issue across all materials I think something needs to be done.
I was going to mention it to you when I looked at your hub earlier, I noticed you had a lot of exotic (prototyping) materials.
Check it out for yourself, play Customer and see if you can see any of those materials from the front-end without knowing the name of them.
I already raised the issue with support@3dhubs and was quite bluntly shut down. Not sure if someone was just having a bad day or who knows. Before giving up completely, I thought I would give it one more try by asking @Filemon directly.
I am not trying to be unreasonable, I understand the goal is to increase conversions by not overwhelming the customer with too much information, but by the same token, I feel it is a gross error to completely eliminate materials that are available. Add an options button just for those customers that want to look, or just put them back in the drop-down again after they’ve selected a hub to let them see what is really available.
The downside? None, they’ve already converted from upload to material to hub selection. The upside? At that point, they may actually decide to choose a material that (usually) yields higher revenue for the Hub and 3D Hubs. Win-Win.
